Tough, the tragic moron lived by the shit

And frolicked in the frothy piss in a land called We are It,

Little jerkie patriot loved that rascal Tough,

And brought him lies and secrets and other fancy stuff, oh

 

Tough, the tragic moron lived by the shit

And frolicked in the frothy piss in a land called We are IT

Tough, the tragic moron lived by the shit

And frolicked in the frothy piss in a land called We are IT 

 

Together they would travel in a boast with billowed sail

Jerkie kept a lookout perched on Tough's gigantic tale

Noble kings and princes would bow wheneer they came,

Pirate ships would lower their flag when Tough roared out his name, oh

 

Tough, the tragic moron lived by the shit

And frolicked in the frothy piss in a land called We are IT

Tough, the tragic moron lived by the shit

And frolicked in the frothy piss in a land called We are IT

 

A moron lives forever but not so little boys

M-16s and killer things make way for other toys

One grey night it happened, Jerkie's loyalty came no more

And Tough the mighty moron, he ceased his fearless roar

 

His head was bent in sorrow, stupid sayings fell like rain

Tough no longer went to play along the bullshit lane

Without this life-long friend, Tough could not be brave

So Tough that mighty moron sadly slipped into his cave, oh

 

Tough, the tragic moron lived by the shit

And frolicked in the frothy piss in land called We are IT

Tough, the tragic moron lived by the shit

And frolicked in the frothy piss in a land called We are IT

Just a little fun. Comments? Wanna try your hand?

Conjuring the end of racism 

or 

Obama is magic

Some time this fall I came to the conclusion that the white man just cannot understand racism.   He has no reference point standing on his podium of privilege.    But what of those white blue collar kinds who privilege and fortune are a stranger, how are they so blindly ignorant?      I am looking once again for an answer.    I have none.    No one listens when I try to explain the anger associated with every crude comment aimed at myself or another ethnicity.   I have insisted on friends, who are people I trust and respect, to keep their comments to themselves.    I have bit my tongue and silently counted to ten when my real desire was to bloody another mans face in response to his ignorance directed toward my self.

Obama congers up ethnic tolerance in all of us...

I am one of those people who believed America would not elect a black man for the office of president.    Afterwards I remember being so proud that WE elected the best person for the office regardless of his skin color or ethnic origin.   

 

Proud to be an American; it has been a while.    

I suppose I have been embarrassed to come from a place where outwardly we proclaimed that all people are created equal, but as an ethnic minority I knew the truth of the matter.  I have experienced the hate first hand.

Now that Obama will be commander and chief standing before our spot light perhaps he will take control and point it into the darker corners. Perhaps, but only if we can hold off bickering amongst ourselves and give him the power to do so regardless of our ethnic origin, whether black or white,pink, blue, you name it. We all provide the magic to win this race.

M. Paul

Good post on this inane formulation by Ezra Klein

(http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2008&base_name=president_of_all_america):

".. the whole "President of all America" descriptor is popular these days, but a bit vague for my tastes. You're president of all America when you win more than 270 votes in the electoral college. Not when people stop disagreeing with your agenda. There's a tendency to downplay the degree to which America is riven by legitimate disagreements over the path forward. Those who think the occasional moment of symbolic outreach to Rick Warren will overwhelm arguments over socialized health care, or taxes, or abortion, aren't paying respect to our essential commonalities so much as dismissing genuine arguments. Few in this country battle to see their policy preferences respected. They battle to see them enacted."

"GOP to Detroit: Drop Dead!"

Who said that?  The Left Wing Media?  A Democratic Senator from Michigan?  A pithy TPM blogger?  Would you believe ultra-Conservative columnist,  Morning Joe staple, and all around good guy, Patrick J. Buchanan?  Start believing!

In a column for Human Events, The Toyota Republicans, Buchanan reads the party the riot act:

What are Republicans thinking of, pulling the plug, at Christmas, on GM, risking swift death for the greatest manufacturing company in American history, a strategic asset and pillar of the U.S. economy.

And, he's really mad:

Is the Republican Party so fanatic in its ideology that, rather than sin against a commandment of Milton Friedman, it is willing to see America written forever out of this fantastic market, let millions of jobs vanish and write off the industrial Midwest?

Pat understands the root of the problem (see TPM, Southern Auto Industry - Some Backstory, by steve katz):

"We have a number of profitable automakers in America, and they should not be disadvantaged for making wise business decisions while failure is rewarded," says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

DeMint is referring to "profitable automakers" like BMW, which sited a plant in Spartanburg, after South Carolina offered the Germans a $150 million subsidy and $80 million to expand.

Of course, Pat needs to get in a good old isolationist, America First, dig:

General Motors employs more workers than all these foreign plants combined. And, unlike Mitsubishi, General Motors didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

Pat doesn't stop with cars:

Do the Republicans not yet understand how they lost the New Majority coalition that gave them three landslides and five victories in six presidential races from 1968 to 1988? Do they not know why the Reagan Democrats in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are going home?

The Republican Party gave their jobs away!

How? By telling U.S. manufacturers they could shut plants here, get rid of their U.S. workers, build factories in Mexico, Asia or China, and ship their products back, free of charge.

Republican globalists gave U.S. manufacturers every incentive to go abroad and take their jobs with them, the jobs of Middle America.

Pat gets what's wrong with the economy...the status quo.

The Replicants (nee Republicans) problems don't stop, there.  In a Swampland blog, Dark Days Ahead: Why Republicans Need Xmas Vacation, michaelscherer writes:

It's bad. Never mind that for two elections in a row Republicans have lost political independents by wide margins. Never mind that their reputation for competence is approaching Bernie Madoff-like levels, or that the nation's demographic shift, particularly the growth in Latino voters, imperils their electoral future. Never mind that party leaders will return to Washington next year with less actual power than at any point since 1995. The real Republican concern is this: The deteriorating economy now threatens to undermine the political value of the GOP's fundamental identity as the party of private markets and limited government.

The old ways aren't working:

In the face of this peril, conservatives find themselves without leadership, direction, or even a cogent ideological response to the crisis. Conservative lodestars, like Dick Cheney, are warning of Herbert Hoover times if Republicans don't open up the federal pocketbooks. Even President Bush has admitted that he "abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." And he did not succeed, clearing the way for much more abandoning to come.

What's a Replicant to do?  Not much according to Adam Nagourney,  Obama frustrates Republicans' desire to criticize:

"I think at a time like this, at a time of crisis, a lot of people would like to see people try to work together, especially with Obama not even being sworn in yet," said Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, who is a leading candidate to be the next leader of the Republican National Committee. "What you don't want to be is the party that's always attacking or being negative with no alternatives."

And, from the top down, Republicans are eating their own:

Its attempt to link Obama to the corruption scandal in Illinois drew criticism not only from McCain but also from Newt Gingrich, a Republican former speaker of the House of Representatives.

"I was saddened to learn that at a time of national trial, when a president-elect is preparing to take office in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over 70 years, that the Republican National Committee is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles," Gingrich wrote in a letter to Duncan.

I've got a suggestion for the Republicans, it combines all the things they do best...impeach Rod Blagojevich!

What Republicans really need are leaders with ideas that aren't tied to the status quo.  Unfortunately, they would lose 75% of their base.

This is the time for Democrats, of all stripes to come together to fix our countries common problems, and relegate the current crop of die hard Republicans to wander the political desert for the next 40 years.

Where's Sarah Palin, your party needs you?

Here are some of the discussion points related to why DOJ OLC would argue not to publicly prosecute Tamm.

This relates to an earlier discussion on what the US government hopes to avoid publicly admitting.

Read more »

Sigh. It'd be a lot easier to put the pieces of the Madoff puzzle together if I still had access to Lexis-Nexis.

In 2/07, Bernie registered Madoff Energy LLC in Delaware. He subsequently registered Madoff Energy Holdings LLC (5/07), Madoff Energy III LLC (5/08) and Madoff Energy IV LLC (10/08).

Gregory (Greg) Imbruce represented Madoff Energy LLC at the 2008 NAPE Expo. 

NAPE website:

"NAPE (formerly North American Prospect Expo) was created in 1993 to provide a marketplace for the buying, selling and trading of oil and gas prospects and producing properties (added in 1998) via exhibit booths. NAPE brings state-of-the-art prospects and properties from U.S. and around the world, advanced technology and energy capital formation all together in one location, creating a pure market place to establish strategic alliances for doing business and initiating purchases and trades."

According to a 10/2/08 S-1A registration statement filed with the SEC, Gregory Imbruce had voting and investment control of  500,000 shares of Deep Down, a public company traded in the over-the-counter market. (Selling Shareholders - p.66)

Deep Down, a Houston company,  purportedly has something to do with remotely operated subsea vehicles and underwater oil drilling but in the world of penny stocks, these companies often only exist on paper.

I glanced at a couple of the Deep Down SEC filings and it looks like a typical OTC scam. The company sold shares privately that could later be resold publicly by the investors, yada yada yada. More importantly,  Deep Down raised something like $37 million from a stock offering and spent $23 million on an "acquisitions" and $12 million paying down "debt". 

The Whitney National Bank, a "national banking association", just loaned a million or so to Deep Down. I'd be very surprised of the Whitney National Bank has anything to do with The Whitneys but I'm sure Deep Down is counting on the Whitney name to lend an air of legitimacy to its business.   

In the S-1A,  Deep Down claimed the selling shareholders were not affiliated with broker-dealers other than the ones listed and Bernie Madoff wasn't listed. Greg Imbruce may not be representing Bernie Madoff but then again, Deep Down may have erred or gasp! lied.

I read somewhere online recently that Bernie mostly traded on the smaller exchanges. These exchanges are subject to so little oversight by the SEC, they might just as well be considered unregulated. 

I wonder what Hartley Bernstein at Stock Patrol has to say about Bernie Madoff. I bet he would have heard if Bernie was trading big time in the OTC market. A few weeks ago, I checked the Stock Patrol website and wondered what happened to Hartley because he hadn't posted since July when he warned his readers about crooked brokers on Wall Street.

Hartley Bernstein himself was convicted of stock fraud but he still lives on Park Avenue. He supposedly started Stock Patrol to help the little guy but he has been accused of manipulating the OTC market with his "exposes". If I recall correctly, Bernstein was featured in a NY Times "bad guy makes good" article awhile back.

If Bernie Madoff was trading a lot in the OTC market, he wasn't the only one speculating in penny stocks with hedge fund money. In a 12/05 Forbes article entitled "Hedge Fund Horror", Bernard Condon wrote about Michael Lauer, a hedge fund operator who "lost" $1.3 billion. The SEC was sure Lauer stole the money but after three years, the SEC still hadn't pressed charges.

Lauer was hooked up with some very influential Texans through a company named "Endeavour International Corporation", formerly known as Continental Southern Resources Inc.  John B. Connally III, Mark A. Bush and Clayton Williams were among the parties involved in this particular Lauer scam.

Getting back to Greg Imbruce, it looks like he and his brother, Doug Imbruce, got started in the stock market when they were fairly young and they both have been very successful. Greg lives with his wife, Alana, in Stamford CT and he seems to be an avid sailor.

Maybe somebody should ask Mr. Imbruce about his relationship with Bernie Madoff.

Next Up: Madoff CIO  

President-elect Obama's transition is the subject of endless fascination for mainstream media writers as well as those in the blogosphere. Looking for clues as to where the upcoming administration will be positioned along the political spectrum is worth a lot of press ink. Today's post summarizes what seems to have emerged as the conventional wisdom in recent weeks on this question.

Progressives vs. Centrists -- The consensus seems to be is that President-elect Obama intends to emphasize his Centrist leanings says The Democratic Strategist on 11/25/08: "The relationship between Obama and the Progressives - is it a "battle for the President's soul" or a "natural division of labor?" (See also this good follow-up article, "Welcoming the New Center.") To quote:

The rapidly mushrooming debate about the relationship between the Obama administration and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party suffers from an unnecessary lack of clarity because many of the commentators do not make a clear distinction between two very distinct ways of visualizing the issue.

The first, which might be called "the battle for the President's soul" perspective, visualizes progressives and centrists or conservatives as engaged in a permanent tug of war to win the President's support for their agenda. In this perspective, each cabinet appointment and each policy decision the President makes represents one more episode in a perpetual struggle to pull, pressure or cajole the President toward progressive approaches and solutions.

. . . The "natural division of labor" viewpoint frames progressives and a Democratic president as playing roles that are different and parallel but not necessarily antagonistic. To be sure, progressives frequently and strongly disagree with particular presidential choices and action, but, if they choose, they can still conduct that debate within the framework of the particular political strategy that a Democratic president has chosen to pursue. There is, for example, a very compelling progressive argument that either Colin Powell or Sam Nunn would be better choices for Secretary of Defense than William Gates. But it does not necessarily follow that Obama's choice of any of these three individuals would correctly be interpreted as representing either a victory or defeat for the progressive perspective itself. His primary reason for choosing one or the other would not be to reward or punish his progressive supporters.

Liberals vs. Centrists -- There is an increased awareness that "Centrists [are] a Growing Force in [the] Senate's Democratic Majority," according to a recent Congressional Quarterly analysis. This shift of power, if it happens, parallels a shift of power within the Democrats in the Executive branch. The story comes from Yahoo!.com (12/9/08): "Obama seeks peace between new, traditional backers." To quote:

President-elect Barack Obama is refereeing a struggle between liberal activists, who want to help their candidate score rapid wins in Washington, and party traditionalists who would turn his powerful grass-roots organization over to the Democratic National Committee.

Any mishandling by Obama and his aides could cost him support from factions that were crucial to his Nov. 4 victory and that remain important to his hopes of launching a smooth administration in January.

. . . Many of Obama's younger and more liberal supporters -- sometimes collectively called "netroots" because the Internet is their chief communications tool -- want to remain a political and social force that is not subsumed by the Democratic Party.

. . . Obama aides say no firm decision has been made, although many believe the operation -- including the massive e-mail lists and detailed demographic information about supporters -- eventually will be folded into the DNC, typically charged with running the incumbent president's re-election. Other options would be to create a political action committee or an advocacy group. Those would be more palatable to grass-roots leaders who believe they should keep some control of the organization.

Executive vs. Legislative -- An interesting piece from Congressional Quarterly Politics of 1/16/08 is headlined, "Obama's White House reflects respect for the Hill." It details White House staff announcements made by President-elect Barack Obama, reflecting that most of the top spots have gone to recent Capitol Hill veterans. Appointees include Senior Adviser Pete Rouse, formerly Senate chief of staff to Obama and former Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, chief of staff of late to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. To quote further:

They join incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel , a Chicago congressman who is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House leadership, and White House lobbyist Phil Schiliro, who worked as Daschle's policy director and was House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman 's top aide before joining the Obama campaign as a liaison to Capitol Hill.

While Capitol Hill experience is not the primary reason for the appointments, the hires reflect Obama's sensitivity to the importance of Congress in governance, according to a senior transition official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Needing grassroots support -- Another point made in the article was that the Obama campaign relied an ability to transcend partisan lines on the state level and then bring that tactic to Washington. (See also The Democratic Strategist for, "Obama and Grassroots Bipartisanship.") To quote:

The transition official said that true legislative success will hinge on building bipartisan coalitions that go beyond the pure numerical advantage Democrats enjoy in the House and Senate. In other words, it is not good enough to simply have the numbers to win if there isn't broader public support for the policy.

"They're going to have to really resist the temptation to jam things down," Feehery [a Republican strategist] said.

The last eight years of Republicans' divisiveness, rancor, partisanship, I win/you lose, and polarization may be diminished in the Barack Obama administration. We will have to wait and see, of course, but bipartisanship and coalition building may replace the Republican divide and conquer mentality. The question is whether the country is ready for such change. The voters cast their ballots for it. Now we will see whether elected officials are ready to follow the people as they lead.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My "creativity and dreaming" post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics presidential transition obama democrats

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Everyone here knows the recent so-called bailout of our financial markets and the attached cost of 700 billion dollars.  I say, so-called because we have little way of knowing how the tax dollars are being spent. 

It has been reported that the U.S. is now on the hook for far more than that sum. One trillion dollars?  Two trillion dollars?

And there is the further issue as to whether or not this bail-out will work or whether the monies will be swallowed up by more than 125 billion dollars in salaries and bonuses handed out by the financial institutions that received the money along with other programs instituted by the same institutions that will have little effect upon our economy.

What can be done about all of this?  How can we, as a nation, be assured that our tax coffers will be replenished by the oligarchy that controls our economy?

STETs have been instituted in countries all over the world.

Not so long ago there was a serious discussion of instituting a STET upon all security transactions that take place in this country.  Trillions upon trillions of dollars in securities are traded every year on the various exchanges. Billions upon billions of dollars would be collected by our government to replenish its lost reserves.  Over a period of a decade, trillions would be collected by a small one percent tax upon every security transaction based upon the sales price of that transaction.

In addition to the tax monies collected, the tax would serve as a deterrent to short term speculation.

The financial markets were responsible for this economic crisis and they need to face up to their responsibility.

For a fine review of STETS and their effect upon markets around the world go to this site:


http://www.financialpolicy.org/financedev/pollinbaker2001.pdf

I'm new at this, so please don't be too hard on me! I've been frequenting TPM for a while, but I'm new at creating my own blog posts and have been cautiously observing from a distance. :)

I thought Josh's question of President Bush's revocation of the Isaac Toussie's pardon was an interesting one, so I decided to do some digging. I'm no lawyer, but I do have a pro se appeal under my belt that was subsequently labeled a "wake-up call" in my state by the state bar, so I feel I'm as qualified as anyone else to do a little investigating where law is concerned.

P.S. Ruckman, who is currently writing a book on pardons, addressed this very issue on his blog. He mentions two pardons that were revoked by incoming President Grant after being granted by outgoing President Johnson. Apparently the pardons got caught up in transit, and Grant intervened prior to the actual delivery. After being challenged in court, the relevant portion of the ruling is as follows:

If the president can arrest the mission of the messenger went the messenger has departed but ten feet from the door of the presidential mansion, he can arrest such mission at any time before the messenger delivers the pardon to the warden of the prison. 

In Christian Jensen's book The Pardoning Power in the United States, it is similarly noted that the pardon has to be physically delivered in order to be considered granted and legally binding. He notes that even a pardon that was signed and sealed but not physically delivered was not legally binding.

T.J. Halstead, a legislative attorney, noted in a 2006 Report for Congress that pardons must be physically delivered before they are considered binding: 

A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended. The Court further declared: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance."

Looking at the situation logically, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense if presidents were granted the sweeping authority to grant pardons but held to some stringent inability to go back on their word before the documentation was complete. History and precedent shows that unless an individual has a tangible piece of paper in his hand that he has accepted and that verifies he has been pardoned, he has nothing.

While I can appreciate Josh's suggestion that, in an era of technology, the mass media announcement alone may be sufficient, I don't believe it will hold water in court. The fact that Bush rescinded his announcement while still holding executive power and before the actual documentation was received by Toussie should be sufficient to deny his pardon by any future court that would hear the matter.   

I certainly welcome any opposing views and documentation that suggest otherwise.  

 

 

 

 

 

Last Sunday, The NY Times published an Op-Ed, "How to Pay for a 21st-Century Military" calling for billions of dollars in defense cuts through eliminating wasteful military programs inappropriate for 21st century warfare.

Among those programs on the Times' hit list:

Halt production of the Virginia class sub. Ten of these unneeded attack submarines -- modeled on the cold-war-era Seawolf, whose mission was to counter Soviet attack and nuclear launch submarines -- have already been built. The program is little more than a public works project to keep the Newport News, Va., and Groton, Conn., naval shipyards in business.

Good call but it looks like it comes too late. Per Monday's Boston Globe Political Intelligence blog:

The US Navy this afternoon is expected to award a whopping $14 billion contract to General Dynamics to build eight new attack submarines, providing a stable workload for at least the next decade at the company's Electric Boat shipyard in Groton, Conn., and a key manufacturing facility on Narragansset Bay in Quonset Point, R.I., according to several knowledgeable sources. 

The contract for Virginia class submarines "guarantees work on the New England waterfront at least through 2019," said a company official who asked not to be identified before the official announcement from the Department of Defense, which is expected at 5 pm.

General Dynamics employs about 10,500 people between its shipyard in Groton and hull-fabrication plant in Rhode Island.

The timing of this multi-billion dollar sub deal is curious. It comes on the first business day after "How to Pay for a 21st-Century Military" is published. The Navy leaks the announcement of this $14 billion dollar contract award to General Dynamic at a time, three days before Christmas, in which it is likely to receive little scrutinity. More importantly, the contract is announced a month before Obama's inauguration.

The Bush administration certainly wouldn't say no to General Dynamics at this late juncture. President-elect Obama couldn't block the contract if he wanted to. Once sworn-in, President Obama will be powerfully disinclined to cut 10000+ jobs. (Especially as these are all centered in one region). Not with the state of the US economy. No way. No how.

Which begs this question: Did NYT's call to halt Virginia class subs construction instead have the unintended consequence of ensuring the program's continuation?

-AF
Crossposted at:
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

A candidate for RNC chairmanship is sending out CD copies of "Barack the Magic Negro". According to the Huff Post, Chip Saltzman as part of his campaign for the chairmanship,  is distributing this garbage originally developed by his friend, Rush the Lush Limbaugh. The TPM take on this drew scores of comments and recs, so I am saying nothing new here.

I do find it interesting that Billy Frist (The MD who believes that tears can spread AIDS virus) as well as the Huckster are backing Chipper for the RNC post. (By the way, where do all these scooters and chippers come from anyway?)

HuffPo adds that a note accompanied the xmas gift from Saltsman to his constituents: "I look forward to working together in the New Year," Saltsman wrote. "Please enjoy the enclosed CD by my friend Paul Shanklin of the Rush Limbaugh Show."

The CD, called "We Hate the USA," lampoons liberals with such songs as "John Edwards' Poverty Tour," "Wright place, wrong pastor," "Love Client #9," "Ivory and Ebony" and "The Star Spanglish banner."Several of the track titles, including "Barack the Magic Negro," are written in bold font."

TPM today recounts a very recent CNN poll demonstrating that 87% of Americans are more than pleased to see w go away.

At the same time Yahoo (12/26/08) recites a USA poll making Obama the most admired man in America with almost a third of the total vote. A distant second was w with five percent. First time since 1952 that the Pres was not the most admired man in America.  Just as an aside, Hillary is the most admired woman but Michelle Obama comes in fifth in that survey.

Think about it. The wife of a senator, comes in just behind Condi and Oprah for Christ's Sake.
America even loves the New First Lady a month before she sets foot in the WH.

We have a President Elect who can make three out of five three pointers in front of our troops and cameras and the press.We have a PE who could give a speech, a memorable speech, in front of crowds anywhere from twenty thousand people to seventy five thousand people, on the campaign trail,  without a flub. This after a President who could not string three sentences together from a teleprompter at a fake town hall meeting.

We have a PE who could draw two hundred thousand Germans for one of his speeches before he was even elected.  Then he proceeds to France and the French President embraces him like he is the heir apparent.

This guy was a community organizer less than fifteen years ago.  Four years ago, this guy 's opponent in his run for a Senate seat was indicted.  A Republican indicted in Illinois. And the only person the Reps can find to run against Obama, was a nutcase. 

This guy gives a speech a little over four years ago at somebody else's convention, and that is the only memory of the 2004 Democratic Convention that has not been erased by time.

I have said it before and I will say it again until I am dead.  PE Obama was my first choice and I knew he could never be elected because I have picked losers my entire life.
I am as amazed as anyone.

Now pretend you are a Republican.  Pretend that a majority of Americans blame you and your party for the greatest economic crisis since the '30s.  Pretend that your party's very reason for being is what is being blamed for this crisis. Pretend that one man is being held responsible for stealing fifty billion dollars under your eight year watch.  Pretend that the de facto head of your party is less well liked than Chinese toys.

And now, Barack Obama is going to be the 44th President of the United States with a Congressional Majority in his own party that has not been seen in 44 years.

What else can you do? But tell the truth.

Barack Obama is THE MAGIC NEGRO.  And he is going to be around for quite a long time.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered British Channel 4's alternative Christmas address yesterday, sending a message of "happiness, prosperity, peace and brotherhood for humanity." On cue, the broadcast ignited a storm of criticism from those who site the Iranian president's
nuclear ambitions, his hardline views on Israel, and resolute rejection of homosexuality. But the message was moderate, with none of the harsh rhetoric for which he has gained notoriety. God, he said, had created "every human being with the ability to reach the heights of perfection". He also urged Muslims and Christians to work together towards a world of "love, brotherhood and justice".

Why the outrage? I tend not to watch but doesn't President Bush give a televised Christmas address each year? He is a resolute defender of his country's right to possess nuclear weapons (and his is the only country that's ever used them, twice). He threatens countries in the Middle East and even invades them, illegally and unjustly, killing tens of thousands of civilians. And yes, he absolutely rejects homosexuality and publicly supports legislation to limit the civil rights of gays.  

I believe the difference is not merely hypocrisy or a double standard. It's something I've come to call a "presumption of good." When Iraqis, for example, kill civilians, it's their natural predisposition, it's just what they do. When the US uses predator drones in northern Afghanistan to kill civilians, it's an anomaly, a terrible misfortune, albeit a necessary one. The former, our enemies, are presumed evil; they mean to do bad and they do do bad. The latter, the US, is presumed good; "we" mean to do good but sometimes there are bad outcomes: Gotta break eggs to make an omelet!

Bush's Christmas message of peace and love is acceptable because that's the real him up there on the box, telling us to spread joy and goodness. This essentially very good man, however, due to the nature of his job, is sometimes forced to order missile strikes and even invasions that result in the deaths of thousand, even hundreds of thousands of people, and the destruction of the ways of life of millions more. But that's just his job. And he needs to do such for the greater good. Even his evil deeds are conducted out of desire to do good, or so we presume. 

But Ahmadinejad! There's a different story. This man's fundamentally evil. He's just plain bad; there's not a good bone in his body. Therefore, the man we see on the television spreading a message of peace and love is a hoax. He's a liar. A fake. He's putting that face on to trick us; to distract us; to try to hide who he really is: a murdering bigot who is essentially bad.

One is presumed to be good. The other is presumed to be bad. But I think something is wrong with this picture. Neither, of course, is essentially good nor bad. Only our perceptions are twisted.

Thanks for commenting and recommending.

A couple of days ago I uploaded a post about the idea that the "productivity revolution" was the starting point for today's economic fright. Among several interesting comments, I got these questions from a reader, Steve Crawley:

I would like to hear the rest of the story from you about the post-collapse era. Here are a few prompting questions to hopefully get you started. Assuming technology and advanced communications continue be with us, will they contribute to improving our national economic or is something else needed? Do you agree social instability has not yet arrived, but is just around the corner? Or is there another path that is necessary for some sort of economic and possibly social stability to return?

To begin to answer Steve's questions, I would have to start with Yogi Berra's famous caveat, that it is difficult to make predictions... especially about the future. Yuck, yuck.

Read more »

I just listened to Josh Marshall on CSPAN and he got a call from a person who asked him whether he knew about Alex Jones and Infowars.com and then went into a semi-coherenet conspiracy rant about the media.  Josh said he was not familiar with Alex Jones.  I was a little surprised, but I guess that's because I'm from Austin and he is sort of an all-intrusive figure here.  It made me curious to find out how well known he is outside of Austin.

Alex Jones is an Austin cable TV/radio/internet personality and I've always believed he was the driving force behind Ron Paul's popularity among young and impressionable types, Paul being the most frequent guest on Jones' radio show.  I never listen to him, so I'm not an expert on the guy, but he deals entirely in conspiracy theories.  He got his start in the Clinton era, talking about the jack-booted government thugs of the ATF, but unlike Rush and others, he stayed anti-government during the Bush era, just transfering his venom to the Bush administration.   He is a 9-11 "Truther," who believes September 11 was an inside job.  In fact, I would say he is one of the main Truther's out there, having directed and produced several of the 9-11 conspiracy movies.

His main claim to fame is that he and someone from his staff snuck into the Bohemian Grove and videotaped the mock human sacrifice ritual that occurs in the opening ceremony.  That and the Skull and Bones thing helped fuel his belief that Democrats and Republicans are both conspiring to submit the united states to the will of the UN (or something like that). His paranoid rants focus on "One World Government" conspiracies, CIA mind control, Sept 11, the second ammendment under threat, etc.  But he also frequently showed up at  Austin City Council meetings to complain about some local sign of the apocalypse.  Fellow Austinite Richard Linklater cast Jones to play himself in "Scanner Darkly" and in "Slacker," in both cases spewing his conspiracies into a megaphone (in "Scanner Darkly" a black van pulls up next to Jones ranting on the street corner; some special ops types jump out; and they drag him, struggling, into the van before peeling away).

Like I said, I never listen to him, but back when I had cable, I used to stop and watch briefly, fascinated, whenever I happened to flip to his show.  I know a statistically aberrant number of bipolar people, but I have never seen someone so consistently hypomanic, every time I saw him, always just on the edge of fullblown mania. He obviously a bright guy, who does do real research, gathers real information which is often scary just on its face, and interprets it in the most paranoid fashion possible, taking it far beyond credibility. Unlike Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and even Ron Paul, I think Alex Jones really believes his own theories.

Anyway, I guess I thought Jones was more famous than he is, or maybe Josh Marshall just has better things to do than learn about 9-11 truthers, but I just wanted to take an informal poll and see who out in TPM-land had heard of him.

I apologize to the faithful for my affront to the insanity of their religious beliefs, but I can't really get all excited about God supposedly sacrificing his only begotten son on our behalf.  Why not?   God can have as many sons as he wishes.  He's omnipotent.  He could have saved the first one if he had wanted to and he could create as many more as his heart desires. Forgive me if I lack the empathy towards God that such a show of 'devotion' supposedly inspires.  God can't really consider himself THAT lonely since we are all regarded as his children.

Is there a qualified Christian apologist who has rationalized an 'answer' to that conundrum?

Parents of the soldiers killed in Iraq don't have the requisite omnipotent powers to replace their missing loved ones.   Those are the people I really grieve for.

Enjoy.

Here's a link to a Huffington Post article with the headline "Blagojevich wants Obama to testify".

"These firms have to become viable, and that means they have to look at all of their costs and bring them into line so that they can compete in today's global economy because they have come to the taxpayer asking for assistance, and that's the least the taxpayer can ask for in return." 

- White House spokesman Tony Fratto as quoted in Washington Post 12/24/08

"And that's the least the taxpayer can ask for in return?" Excuse me? Just who the hell are the taxpayers here?

Corporate lobbyists like to claim that the U.S. has among the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%. And they are right.

What they don't like to discuss, however, is the effective corporate tax rate; the amount these corporations actually PAY in taxes each year. And, once again they are right in avoiding this topic, because to do so would severely undermine their argument that business pays its fair share in taxes in this country when in fact they enjoy considerable corporate welfare.

In November, 2004, McIntyre and Nguyen published their study FREELOADERS: Declining Corporate Tax Payments in the Bush Years. Their findings show a disturbing growth in the corporate welfare state under Bush that has continued unabated to this day. The numbers should be embarrassing to any within this corporate class who claim legitimacy as a taxpayer in light of the enormous profits recorded by the Fortune 500 Companies that were studied.

Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.

The statistics are startling:

·         Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003.....

·         Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period....

·         In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes.....

·         In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.

·         Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year -- more than double the 1998-2000 average.

Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration was lower.

Meanwhile statistics show that the disparity in incomes between the wealthiest in the business class as compared to the middle class has grown steadily in the last few decades.

Embarrassing? Indeed, unless you have no shame, are overly-impressed with your self-importance, and you are accustomed to having your way via extortion sprinkled heavily with campaign contributions.

How else might the "respectable" Mr.  Paulson & Co. pull off a $700 billion dollar heist of these tax funds in broad daylight? With a straight face, how might they insist that these monies be gifted - with no strings attached - to many of the same companies who have in fact contributed few or no tax dollars to the Treasury account in the first place? How else could they sleep at night after taking a good portion of this money and passing it around as income bonuses and severance packages to their friends or as dividends to their shareholders?

Yet the arrogance and elitism expressed by these "Captains of (the Financial) Industry" and the corporate owners of wealth is not yet fully defined here. No, it is their response to the taxpayers request for assistance in maintaining their own earning potential that sets a new and high standard for just how incredibly arrogant the corporate sector has become, along with their apologists in the political and media arenas.

Having avoided the greater share of their responsibility to pay taxes, these parasitic corporate welfare tagalongs would now propose to tell the taxpayers how their tax dollars should be spent. It was humbling - no, humiliating - to watch as the CEO's of the Big Three Automakers pleaded their case before Congress to receive $17 billion dollars in loans from taxpayers to help our auto industry weather this economic downturn which, by the way, was initially triggered within our financial markets. The amount requested was a mere pittance compared to the monies that were gifted to the financial market itself. And these dollars were expected to bridge a time period within which the auto industry would create a plan that showed how they would survive the economic upheaval we face. This, alone, was different than the Paulson giveaway, which was accomplished without any real explanation of how his $700 billion dollar disbursement might actually serve the interests of anyone beyond the people to whom it was given.

After having stolen theirs, Paulson & his corporate comrades would now insist that "free market capitalism" requires any loans to the manufacturing sector be considered only if the middle class beneficiaries first make concessions to reduce their earning potential. "These firms have to become viable," says the White House, carrying water for these Class Warriors from the winning side "and that means they have to look at all of their costs and bring them into line so that they can compete in today's global economy." How better a way is there to reduce labor costs, they ask, than to use this time of need to extort additional wage concessions from the UAW?

The appropriate answer, from those among the middle class smart enough and strong enough to finally engage the enemy in this Class Warfare which has been visited against us, is to say "Kiss my ass!"

It is past time for the middle class to become smart enough to understand that their earning potential is directly linked to the success of the UAW and other union bargaining efforts. We must be smart enough to understand that a race to the lowest common denominator in wage rates for labor does not serve our interests. We need be smart enough to understand that the "enemy" is not our working brethren, but rather the wealthy class who maintain a strangle hold on labor to gain for themselves every bit of wealth they can grab from this economy.

In standing tall together and repelling this demand that we surrender ground in this economy by agreeing to lower our wage expectations and become "competitive," we can at last let the wealthy corporations and the "ownership" class know that we are not their "human resource." We are not simply another commodity - like steel, or utilities, or raw materials - to be bought cheap, used up, discarded and replaced.

Instead, we must proudly insist that we are owners of this economy with every right to share in its benefits as the wealthy class has done these last number of decades. We are, in fact, the taxpayers who deserve benefit of any taxpayer bailout - whether tendered as a gift or a loan - that may now be offered to soften the blow of this economic downturn. Rather than a "free market," we must instead insist that we engage a "fair market" that recognizes the need to include everyone - poor, wealthy, and in-between - in developing the means by which we will pursue the blessings of liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our economy.

For now, however, the important question to be answered is, unfortunately, "Whose side are you on?" In the end, we must certainly align ourselves with all our brethren - poor, wealthy, and in-between - instead of choosing sides in a counter-productive battle between players in this economy. That is, after all, what democracy is all about. We ultimately need to all roll up our sleeves and work together for the common good in overcoming the many challenges we confront in this economic downturn.

Meanwhile, however, it's important to understand that we have had a Class War imposed upon us by those who hope to beat us into submission. We therefore must now stand tall in defense of ourselves and others in the middle class who have meekly stood for far too long with hat in hand awaiting the largesse of the wealthy corporate class who sold us on "trickle down" economics, and who instead set about robbing us of everything - up to and including our pride - to fatten their own bottom line.

Congress must now do whatever is necessary to address the immediate problems in our economy. In so doing, however, they must refrain from engaging the Class War on behalf of their campign contributors and instead lay the groundwork for a new economy that serves everyone's interests going forward.

******************

NOTE: Read more CLASS WAR essays by scrolling through the posts on SleepinJeezus' blog here.

 

This outlines the scope of another illegal domestic program.

The information below may help illustrate the problems with the proposed data ming, and help support greater, independent oversight. The same procedures that would be used to troll the internet are already in play in physical space.

Seven years on, DHS still talks about an "external threat", without an adequate plan to comply with the Constitution, nor adequately regulate contractors using this false information against Americans.

Read more »

So many times I've heard or read, "Just wait until Obama gets in office.  Then things are gonna happen!"

"Obama's gonna take care of that problem.  You'll see."

"He's gonna hit the ground running!"

Yep.  He's got the plan, he's got the people, he's got the power.
The thought of his first day in the Oval Office kinda makes me tingly all over.

After reading his words, hearing his speeches, listening to his interviews, one thing became abundantly clear to me.  Obama is a team player and the main requirement of playing on his team (besides being good at what you do) is to be a team player, too.  You know, carry your fair share of the load and don't be a prima donna.  Roll up your sleeves and let's get some work done.  Fight the good fight.

I like that.  It makes me want to be part of the team.  It makes me want to bring what I have to the fight.

Now, that's leadership.  And that's what Obama is bringing to the fight...not a magic wand.  I'm afraid the people that think his first day in office will be the day he cures all ills are going to be disappointed.  I hope they have patience and I hope they know Obama can't do it all on his own.

Before he went off on his well deserved vacation he said, repeating what he has said many times before, the situation with our economy is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.  He's not kiddin'.  Why would he?

Even with the auto industry bailout things are going to continue to get tough for working families.  It wouldn't matter if Obama had a dozen magic wands...he just can't stop this trainwreck.  The experts say it could be a couple of years before things start moving upwards again.  That's 730 days and when you're a family that lives day to day as a result of the poor economy, that's a damn long time.

Donations to charities and food banks are down and demand is high.  The thought of little kids going to bed hungry tears at this mother's heart but I don't have a lot of financial resources, I don't have a lot of choices as to the ways I can help. 

But, what I can do is grow a garden.  (I didn't get my ~flowerchild~ moniker for nothing, ya know)

This year and next, instead of growing rows of zinnias, I'm going to grow rows green beans.  And sweet corn. Some squash and potatoes. Maybe some carrots.  Most local food banks accept fresh produce...gladly.  When I learned they did, I knew I had found my niche. 

I had picked my battle...it was hunger...and I could be a part of the team by helping to feed those down and out families while the economy untanked itself.  It might not sound like much, but it's what I have to offer and it's something that I love doing anyway so it hardly even hurts.

There are other issues, too.  Energy, ecology, health.  War.  The plight of vets, recently returned and those from the past, is another issue close to my heart that I will find a way to help with. 

The list of needs is varied, long, and growing longer.  Choose an issue and do what you can, big or little. You know...'little drops of water a mighty ocean makes.'

I kinda think Obama is expecting it from all of us. Otherwise, why would he be talking about pulling together as a nation and making sacrifices to get us out of this mess?  Pick your battle and take what you have to the fight.

The battle I picked was hunger and what I'm bringing to the fight is a hoe and a bag of organic compost.

What I would like to know is, has anyone else picked a battle? 

If so, what are you bringing to the fight?

Book Announcement! 

A former neighbor of my mom's who became her friend and has kept up a friendship with me, even after mom's passing has written a book on the importance of grandparent kid friendships,

 "GrandFriendships,"       http://www.grandfriendships.com/  

a look at the joy and growth inherent in the relationships of children and  grandparents. 

For the many years that I have known her, Helene has been an advocate, not only for the importance of grand parenting in fully multi generational families, but even more importantly she has worked to increase opportunities of the kids and adults who may not have easy access to their own grandparents or grandkids. Now she is sharing what she has learned.

My take on this? 
The nature of the American nuclear family has sometimes isolated us more than has been healthy and we have not taken advantage of the opportunities and yes, needs in our own communities.  How much cost  and how much benefit would there be if your local day care center hired a few "old fogies" to play with the kids? And why do you hardly ever see kids being invited to adult need day care? These are just a few of the opportunities around us.  I think we are missing something that could easily be made better. But don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself! 

pat 

A couple of very informative interviews with both Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn from the UC Berkeley's "Conversations with History" series...

Howard Zinn See a webcast of this interview: Zinn 42 min.

1. Background ... observing his parents' lives ... reading Dickens ... life and scholarship intertwined ... becoming a radical by experience ... dissertation on LaGuardia
2. The Early Civil Rights Movement ... Spelman college ... learning black history ... watching democracy come alive
3. The Development of Social Movements ... unforeseen success
4. Experiencing War ... bombardier in World War II ... first use of napalm ... no questioning ... the myth of precision bombing ... no "good war"
5. History ... the omissions of history books ... examples: Columbus; Jacksonian democracy ... courage
6. Writing History ... clarity ... passion ... education through activism ... knowledge of history as empowerment
7. Conclusion ... cautious optimism ... the reason for learning ... engaging in the struggle

Noam Chomsky See a YouTube webcast of this interview: Chomsky 60 min.

1. Background ... family influences ... his uncle and the New York newsstand ... Zionism ... Orwell ... the Spanish Civil War ... dread of fascism and palpable sense of anti-Semitism ... commentary by a ten-year-old
2. Anarchism and Power ... distinctiveness of U.S view... 19th century workers' movements and culture ... defining legitimate power ... burden of proof ... even for the powerless
3. Thinking about Power ... scientific inquiry and political questions ... the centrality of human freedom ... media control of the debate ... "concision" ... manufacturing consent ... the power to frame the issues
4. The U.S. Role in the World ... the case of Iraq ... the cases of Serbia and Turkey ... the case of Indonesia ....two kinds of intellectuals ... the case of Kosovo
5. Activism ... joining together ... changing consciousness ... the real heroes ... elementary moral principles ... courage ... the hard work

~OGD~

x-posted from Stop The Mormons

Admittedly, I got busy with the holidays and fell behind in my reading at some of my favorite websites. I figured I could bookmark, spend a couple days getting reacquainted with the wife and kids, and then catch up later.

Later was apparently too late:

No longer available? Now that's disappointing.

After the success of the Evangelical-Mormon lovefest otherwise known as Prop 8, I was really looking forward to reading what Glenn Beck might write over at James Dobson's place. Would Glenn use the opportunity to ask Dr. Dobson about that time back in 2004 when Dobson's wife, Shirley, excluded Mormons from the National Day of Prayer? And would Glenn suggest that maybe, in the afterglow of Prop 8, now was a good time for Dr. Dobson to offer an apology to Mormons for not letting them use the word "Christian" to describe themselves? And would it be an apology as heartfelt as the one that Beck delivered to Dobson on-air in 2007? And, considering how successful the Mormons were at helping the Evangelicals keep the word "marriage" all to themselves out in California, would Dr. Dobson perhaps finally be moved to graciously begin sharing the "C" word with the Mormons? I mean, Beck and Dobson are both good "Christians" right?

The potential was there for an absolutely riveting read.

So, what happened?

Well, it turns out that apparently Dr. Dobson has agreed that the "C" word does apply to Mormons. The problem now is that it's that other "C" word. See if you can spot it while I try to sort out the story behind this gripping tale of a dead link.

December 19: A story goes up on Focus on the Family's CitizenLink website promoting Mormon TV host Glenn Beck's latest book, "The Christmas Sweater."

Later that same day, a Christian blogger pens a brief diary under the title Focus on the Family Embraces Mormonism.

December 21: Another Christian blogger weighs in, this time in a post titled Focus on the Family Implicitly Affirms Mormonism that includes this advice:

I strongly discourage you from giving money to any religious organization that is so committed to a social agenda that they are willing to ignore the vast difference between biblical Christianity and the cult of Mormonism ... When Christians yoke up with unbelievers in order to promote a common social agenda, we display a gross lack of discernment, feed religious pluralism, and end up doing all kinds of wierd [sic] and sinful things in hopes of restoring the Andy Griffith moralism of the 1950s ...

December 22: A press release goes out over the ChristianNewsWire announcing that Focus on the Family Promotes Mormon Glenn Beck at CitizenLink and that:

Clearly, Mormonism is a cult. The CitizenLink story does not mention Beck's Mormon faith, however, the story makes it look as if Beck is a Christian who believes in the essential doctrines of the faith ... to promote a Mormon as a Christian is not helpful to the cause of Jesus Christ. For Christians to influence society, Christians should be promoting the central issues of the faith properly without opening the door to false religions.

Later that same day, John Schroeder, the Christian half of the Evangelical-Mormon blogging duo over at Article VI responds with Embarrassed By My Brethren ... and writes:

This move [promoting Glenn Beck] by the Dobson organization should be applauded loudly and long. Nobody can swing more evangelical votes than James Dobson - NOBODY. ... Of course, if we are lucky, this blog will be the only outlet in the world to pay attention to this press release [slamming Dobson's promotion of Beck on the CitizenLink site].

December 24: No such luck. And our unlucky Article VI blogger, noticing that the Glenn Beck article has been pulled off the CitizenLink website, posts this woeful update: ARRGH!:

... the Dobson organization has caved ...

The absolute worst part is that in California we have just witnessed what is possible if Mormons and Evangelicals and Catholics unite politically - so how does the leading Evangelical public figure (although Dobson is rapidly being supplanted in that role by Pastor Warren) respond? By caving to the slighest pressure from a few grossly over-zealous types. Which does what? It weakens an already very weak and formative bridge between.

Shame on the Dobson organization.

Wow.

And now I'm wondering why they even need two bloggers over at Article VI? John Schroeder's obviously got serious talent when it comes to generating a passionate debate with himself:

Nobody can swing more evangelical votes than James Dobson! Dobson is yesterday's news, all hail Rick Warren! The Dobson organization should be applauded loudly and long! Shame on the Dobson organization!

Ouch.

And now that Dobson has scrubbed his site of Beck's Mormon taint, it'll be interesting to watch and see if Lowell Brown (the Mormon half of Article VI) has anything more to say on the subject. What say you, Lowell? For all your hard work on Prop 8, what gift were Mormons like yourself hoping to receive from Evangelicals who consider yours a false religion and your church a cult?

Whatever it was, you need to wake up and go check your Christmas stocking: Santa Dobson has done delivered your lump of coal.

Chino Blanco

Republicans in the Nixon Administration and the Reagan Administration underlined 'Law and Order' as the most important means to maintain a safe and strong society. They stressed the importance of personal responsibility.

This Creed, if you will, was like a new theory of Karma.   It was not that we made mistakes in past lives and therefore must pay for these sins in the present life. It was that whatever station we may find ourselves in, it is our fault; our individual fault.

These two mottos culminated into real legislation.  Sentencing guidelines hamstrung judges and forced them to impose longer prison terms. Sterner drug laws were imposed calling for more incarcerations for longer periods of time.

Racketeering statutes were passed increasing the ability of prosecutors to prove conspiracies among drug traffickers  as well as Mafioso, which enabled DAs to incarcerate even more people.All these laws were imposed in order to create a deterrence factor, to keep individuals from breaking the law.

This all led to a nation  that incarcerates some 3,000,000 people in the jails and prisons and holding tanks, one percent of our entire population.  More than any other nation on earth.

We have so many people incarcerated that we now 'outsource' a growing number of our prison population to private corporations. Like it might be related in some sci fi novel.

But Republicans and conservatives have an easier time telling the citizenry to do as they say, not as they do.

Economic crisis. Banks failing. Mortgage failures throw  millions of people onto the street. Ponzi schemes wipe out 401ks, and charitable foundations, and pension funds . This will mean that the poor will be hard hit with less funding for homeless shelters, food shelves and access to clothing.  This will mean millions moving from the so-called Middle Class to some lower economic rung.

The Washington Post (Dec.24) reports:

"During his tenure, the SEC has watched as all the investment banks it oversaw collapsed, were swallowed up or got out of their traditional line of business. The agency, meanwhile, was on the sidelines while the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve worked to bail out the financial sector. And the SEC, by its own admission, failed to detect an alleged $50 billion fraud by Bernard L. Madoff that may be the largest Ponzi scheme in history."

Cox, the head of the SEC, an agency that has jurisdiction over banks, mortgage institutions, and corporations since 2005 responds to accusations that he and his organization might have some responsibility in this crisis.

But Cox is saying that he did not do anything wrong.  That his commission is not in any way responsible for this crisis and that he has shown a strength best exemplified by Kipling during the crisis:

If you can hold your head when all those around you are losing theirs...

Eric Lichtblau, in the December 24th NYT, relates:

Legal and financial experts say that a loosening of enforcement measures, cutbacks in staffing at the Securities and Exchange Commission...There were 133 prosecutions for securities fraud in the first 11 months of this fiscal year. That is down from 437 cases in 2000 and from a high of 513 cases in 2002, when Wall Street scandals from Enron to WorldCom led to a crackdown on corporate crime, the data showed.

"It's been awful," Sean Coffey, a former fraud prosecutor in New York who now represents investors in securities litigation, said of the S.E.C.'s recent enforcement record...In the last few years, he said, "the administration has been sending the message that we're going to loosen the binds on the market to compete in the global marketplace, and they've pulled the throttle back on prosecutions because it wasn't politically necessary anymore."

I remember when Tricky Dicky insisted that he would take the responsibility and not the blame.

What the hell does that mean?

The SEC had cut its staff since 2003 when the Enron scandal evaporated from the public consciousness. The SEC had ordered that investigations  of corporate wrongdoings be curbed. The SEC initiated fewer investigations during a period in which the very definition of 'investments' was changing.  That is, at a time when there should have been more overseeing of the organizations within its dominion.

Cox reflects the perspectives of the man who appointed him. Even in the midst of economic collapse, Cox wont even admit responsibility let alone blame for what took place during his watch.

If you look at just a small portion of news items discussing this mess, you will see government operatives looking back to 1999. Even Cox initiates an internal investigation going back to 1999. Who is that going to fool?  Eight years under the watch of w and less than 2 years under the watch of Clinton.  And Cox's watch alone is a five year stretch.

There are so many facts here that will lead to long books. Madoff as a paid adviser for the SEC. Long complaints filed with the SEC documenting Madoff's operation and calling for action.

Three million Americans are now taking responsibility for their actions.

When are the powerful going to take responsibility for theirs?

In his December 22 column, Paul Krugman says we must step away from so-called 'free trade' if we want a sustained economic recovery (italics added).

A more plausible route to sustained recovery would be a drastic reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, which soared at the same time the housing bubble was inflating. By selling more to other countries and spending more of our own income on U.S.-produced goods, we could get to full employment without a boom in either consumption or investment spending.

This, of course, is heresy in the High Church of Free Trade.   According to dogma, if a good or service can be produced elsewhere more efficiently (and the wizards of finance will tell you what 'more efficiently' means), domestic employment or balance of trade must be sacrificed to the higher cause.  

Krugman seems to be sanctioning something dangerously close to import substitution, an approach to economic development popular in the post-colonial era - and replaced by the neoliberal 'Washington consensus.'  But he doesn't stop there.

[W]here will the capacity for a surge in exports and import-competing production come from? Despite rising trade in services, most world trade is still in goods, especially manufactured goods -- and the U.S. manufacturing sector, after years of neglect in favor of real estate and the financial industry, has a lot of catching up to do.

Krugman is whacking another pillar of the church: the infallibility of the post-industrial service economy.  This doctrine holds that we are past making 'things,' whether it's clothes and steel (dubbed 'sunset industries'), or computers and consumer electronics (mere 'commodities'), and our economic future is in services, as in, say, financial services. (Funny how the cheerleaders for the post-industrial economy were so jazzed by China's economic miracle - though it sprang from manufacturing, not services.)

The under-appreciated Eamonn Fingleton has pointed out that policy-makers' misplaced faith in a service economy is an error of historic proportions.  At any rate, Krugman brings up the often-overlooked fact that most of the world's economic activity still involves making things - and our ability to make things has been crippled by the financial sector's growth.

Kevin Phillips has chronicled what happens when manufacturing is eclipsed by finance, and it is not pretty.  Krugman is catching up. In his December 19th column, he writes:

The financial services industry has claimed an ever-growing share of the nation's income over the past generation, making the people who run the industry incredibly rich. Yet, at this point, it looks as if much of the industry has been destroying value, not creating it. And it's not just a matter of money: the vast riches achieved by those who managed other people's money have had a corrupting effect on our society as a whole. ...

[H]ow much has our nation's future been damaged by the magnetic pull of quick personal wealth, which for years has drawn many of our best and brightest young people into investment banking, at the expense of science, public service and just about everything else? Most of all, the vast riches being earned -- or maybe that should be "earned" -- in our bloated financial industry undermined our sense of reality and degraded our judgment.

The problem is the bloated financial industry itself, not just bloated salaries in the industry.  It has undermined and degraded our productive capacity, our ability to make the things we use in our everyday lives, leaving us dangerously dependent on uncertain sources of not just energy, but food, clothing and technology as well.

Even Tom Friedman, that archbishop of flat-earthism, is beginning to see the light. Two days before Christmas he wrote:

[W]e've fallen into a trend of diverting and rewarding the best of our collective I.Q. to people doing financial engineering rather than real engineering. These rocket scientists and engineers were designing complex financial instruments to make money out of money -- rather than designing cars, phones, computers, teaching tools, Internet programs and medical equipment that could improve the lives and productivity of millions.

Sorry, Tom, but we didn't fall into a trend - we jumped head first into the post-industrial-financial-service-economy-is-the-future abyss, and you were standing tall at the edge of the flat world assuring us the bungee cord was secure.

In reality, research and engineering follow production. You'll find the researchers and engineers creating the next generation of technology right there where you find people making the cars, phones, computers and medical equipment we use today.

This is cross posted on my blog Relevant Information, http://ellisinfo.blogspot.com/. 

When the days are darkest, a single candle burns bright.

Much love to Josh & all the TPM'ers for lighting our way. I think the days are getting longer at last!

Yo, Saturnalia*,
--Sandi

*the customary greeting for the occasion is a "Io, Saturnalia!" ­ io (pronounced "yo") being a Latin interjection related to "ho" (as in "Ho, praise to Saturn").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

If you've been following the news you (may) know that O'Hare airport is still a delayed mess after the storms earlier this week.  And I should know, because I've been here for a day and a half!  Yay!  Unfortunately, I'd be on Southwest except it flies out of Midway and doesn't have any commuter lines from the boondocks town I live in (and flying United seemed easier than driving the two hours to Midway - a mistake I'll never make again!). 

A short one on Caroline Kennedy since I've already more than made my thoughts known about whether or not I want her to be my senator...

Why all the venom directed at people who, for whatever reasons, just don't want Caroline.

Why did MJ Rosenberg call us hypocrites?  Why did Bernard Avishai so casually dismiss criticisms based on Kennedy's background and qualifications?  I know that some people really like Kennedys (and Caroline in particular) but don't people realize that it's possible that people who very passionately don't want her to be senator aren't motivated by any sort of evil?

I've made my case already and you're all familiar with the arguments but why all the venom from Caroline's supporters.  It's as if they're somehow shocked or appalled that anyone would criticize, much less oppose, this idea.

I was particularly struck by Rosenberg's argument about governor Rockefeller replacing Bobby Kennedy with a Republican even though New Yorkers had clearly elected a Democrat.  Nobody complained then, said Rosenberg, so why are people complaining about Caroline now?  There's a couple of troubling assumptions behind that statement.  One is that people were right not to complain then.  If they didn't, they should have.  The other is that New York's laws as they're written are right and good.  I'm not so sure.  They certainly didn't anticipate having an unelected governor select a senator.  Maybe I'm wrong about this and the laws are absolutely the best they can be.  But I think it's worth discussing -- Caroline's defenders don't seem to agree.

Finally, there's the matter of a public vetting, another thing that Caroline's supporters seem to think she's above.  Before she's appointed I want to see her in a candid, difficult interview.  I want to see a platform.  I want her to lay her finances bare.  She should release her tax returns and list of donors to any foundations she's chaired.

I totally understand why some dismiss the "she's only up for this because of her last name" argument.  If you like her, why would you care how she got to be considered?  But I can't believe that smart people here are willing to argue that the person who is going to be my senator doesn't owe me some transparent look at her finances and philosophy.

Instead of criticizing Caroline's critics, I think that Caroline's defenders should work to get Caroline to answer some of our critcisms.  Show me a platform and show me her books and maybe I'll change my mind.

My memory, which can be less than photographic sometimes before surprising with a sharp and verifiable recollection of obscure events long ago, says that the device of calling this day "December 25" was imposed on me during childhood. Whether that is so or not, I have found it as convenient a way to mark a holiday I do not celebrate, but which overwhelms the country in which I live, and much of the western world.

I don't begrudge it or Christians. I was married to one for many years and she wanted a tree, so I bought a tree. My daughter, who probably sees herself more Jewish than anything else, loves the holiday and, as a young adult, bought her own tree this year.
So. Good.

Read more »

Prologue

"Early in 1981, the Roldos administration formally presented his new hydrocarbons law to the Ecuadorian Congress.  If implemented, it would reform the country's relationship to oil companies...He died in a fiery airplane crash on May 24, 1981...

[In Panama, General] Torrijos...adamantly refused to give in to the Reagan administration's demands to renegotiate the Canal Treaty.  Two months after Roldos's death, Omar Torrijos's nightmare came true; he died in a plane crash.  It was July 31, 1981"

John Perkins, former economist, MAIN, Inc.

Act One
"Rove has past ties with Ashcroft as an adviser to the former Missouri
senator's political campaigns. A company that Rove controlled was
reportedly paid more than $300,000 by Ashcroft's 1994 Senate campaign
for direct mail and other services, according to a New York Times
report. Rove also reportedly played a role in two earlier Ashcroft
campaigns for governor. "
Village Voice, Oct 2003

"Small pieces of plane and human remains were scattered over a large
area in rocky and densely wooded terrain.  Democrats, in particular,
were stunned by the loss. Mr Carnahan was a two-term Governor who was
hugely popular in the party. Politically, moreover, he died at a
crucial time. His race against Senator Ashcroft, a darling of the
conservative Christians, was among the most closely contested in the
country.
The Independent, Oct 2000

Act Two
"Paul Wellstone is a hunted man. Minnesota's senior senator is not
just another Democrat on White House political czar Karl Rove's target
list, in an election year when the Senate balance of power could be
decided by the voters of a single state. Rather, getting rid of
Wellstone is a passion for Rove, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush "
The Nation, May 2002

"The mangled remains of the plane in which Sen. Paul Wellstone died
were so badly damaged by the impact and subsequent fire that some key
clues to help investigators understand the cause of the crash appear
to have been lost."
CNN, Oct 2002


Act Three
"Karl Rove has threatened a GOP high-tech guru and his wife, if he
does not "'take the fall' for election fraud in Ohio." ...[Mike]
Connell and his firm are currently employed by the John McCain
campaign."
The Huffington Post, July 2008

"A single-prop, private airplane crashed next to a vacant house on
Charolais Street Northwest Friday evening, exploding into flames and
killing the pilot.  Michael Connell, 45, of Bath Township, was alone
in the plane, according to State Highway Patrol Lt. Eric Sheppard."
Akron Beacon Journal, December 19th 2008


More coverage:
CBS
DemocracyNow

Just wanted to say Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all those that I have come to look forward to following and enjoy reading, commenting and sometimes arguing with.

I hope you all have a GREAT Christmas and an OUTSTANDING NEW YEAR. I can not wait to see what we can accomplish in 2009.

My suggestions are the following:

        1. Push hard for SINGLE PAYER Universal Health Care.

        2. Talk Sherrod Brown into an exploratory committee for 2016

        3. Make new friends out of current foes.

        4. Expand my Middle Class Town Hall Site. Please check it out and feel free to post.

        5. And on a more personal note, stop using my cane to get around and put out my last

            smoke.

Hope y'all have your best Holiday season ever. 

On Tuesday, George Bush pardoned Isaac Robert Toussie, a felon who pled guilty and was convicted of making false statements to the Housing and Urban Development Department and of mail fraud. On Wednesday, that pardon was revoked because the White House (a metanym for "Bush") wanted to avoid creating "an appearance of impropriety," after it was discovered that Toussie's father was a major RNC contributor.

Let's put this in perspective. Pardon's are a special privilege that empowers presidents to basically say, "fu*k the law and courts, I've decided to let the guy off scot free!" There can be almost no pretext about the use of this privilege to set things right or "do the right thing," even thought I'm aware that it has, in fact, been used in such a way in the past (draft dodgers, Confederate vets, etc.) Usually, it's a way of helping out friends, allies, or colleagues.

So why is it all of a sudden not okay to pardon Toussie because his dad was an RNC contributor or that he might have been a bit more unsavory then expected? He's a criminal and Bush sought to get him off the hook. So he's a bribing criminal and that's over the line?

My question is this: Bush is trying to avoid impropriety but are any pardons of convicted criminals really "proper." 

Thanks for commenting and recommending.

When Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was chairman of Goldman Sachs, he went into the foreign stock exchange business with Bernie Madoff even though he knew Bernie was a crook.

6/19/01 Guardian UK:

"City briefing: Backers for EuroNasdaq"

Nasdaq-Europe, the pan-European stock market controlled by the US Nasdaq stock market, yesterday said that eight banks and brokers had taken stakes in the company.

The eight are US market maker Bernard L Madoff, French bank BNP Paribas, Swiss bank Credit Suisse, Belgian-Dutch financial house Fortis, and three Wall Street investment banks - Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Schroder Salomon Smith Barney, and Spain's Santander Central Hispano Investment.

12/22/08 Telegraph UK:

"Bernard Madoff 'fraud': Increased scrutiny in hedge fund industry"

More than a decade ago bankers from Goldman Sachs' asset management division were despatched to Bernard Madoff Investment Securities to discover how the legendary fund manager maintained such consistently good returns.

The American banking giant prided itself on managing funds in-house but if it could get a better deal for its clients at Madoff, Goldman would gracefully admit it and allocate some funds.

One former Goldman partner said: "I remember the guys came back baffled. Madoff refused to let them do any due diligence on the funds and when they asked about the firm's investment strategy they couldn't understand it. Goldman not only black-listed Madoff in the asset management division but banned the brokering side from trading with the firm too."

Information about Bernie Madoff's business between 2001 and last month is hard to come by. I tried three different search facilities and zippo. I did find one recent article about NASDAQ US taking a stake in an ailing NASDAQ Europe.

But NASDAQ Europe wasn't the only joint venture between Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, and Goldman Sachs.

12/10/99 Wall Street Journal:

"Nasdaq Agrees to Adopt Auction System To Trade Its Shares and NYSE Issues"

...The NASD announced an agreement in principle to adopt the trading system being developed by Primex Trading NA LLC.

When an order is entered in Primex, participants compete for it by trying to better the best bid or offer then prevailing in the country. This "auction" process is the heart of the Big Board, but there, only floor brokers and specialists compete in the auction. Primex promises to allow any participant in the country to compete.

Primex "will provide one additional valuable . . . . means to produce price improvement between bid and offer," said Rick Ketchum, president of the NASD.

Primex is the brainchild of Bernard and Peter Madoff, the brothers who run Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, a so-called third-market firm whose primary business is competing with the NYSE and regional exchanges for orders in Big Board stocks.

But its other backers include the exchange's four largest member firms: Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc.'s Salomon Smith Barney unit....

Oddly enough, a well known financial search engine returned a number of current Madoff scandal stories with the date 9/14/08. That is the day Ben Bernanke announced the Federal Reserve had downgraded the quality of collateral it would accept for various financial transactions.

Did someone or some institution pledge an investment in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities as collateral and the Fed got burned big time? 

Forget Bernie's trading strategy. Anyone with access to basic financial data would have known Bernie Madoff wasn't buying and selling more than $20 billion of treasury bills every month. Transactions of that size are too big to go unnoticed and they are easily verified. 

Why Henry Paulson kept his mouth shut about Bernie Madoff's scam is another good question.  

China and Russia Facing Tough Choices

China's unique experiment 30 years successful capitalist development under the rule of the communist party. Bearing in mind the capitalist development was with massive US help and the communist party was very open minded unlike others it worked.

On the other hand Russia disbanded the communist party altogether but suffered from criminal privatization and political instability to swing towards stronger central government reclaiming its stake in the economy.
Now with falling oil prices the Russian government won't be able to bribe the population into submission and will face popular protests.

With economic stagnation in the US and other major markets Chinese leaders face the same predicament.

From the way they manage this precarious situation will depend the pace of recovery for the rest of the world. Or not?

I read this entry in Huffington Post and it really kind of
pissed me off. Especially this part.

And as the wave of crappy giving
spreads across the country, it is
creating a reaction of outrage
and anger from those it was
intended to please: the
recipients.

"I opened a present this morning,
thinking maybe it was a laptop or
something, and it turned out to
be a framed Wal-Mart photo of my
nephews," said Harland Dorinson
of Topeka. "Talk about a way to
wreck the holidays."

It's this kind of self centered superficial BS that a good part of
the problem in this country and why may family no longer engages
in the traditional gift exchange.

Let me explain. When I was young we would do the usual Christmas
thing. I would go with my father to get a tree, usually from a local
tree farm. We would make the usual trip into town to the shopping
center. (This was the 50s and 60s so no Malls yet.) I and my
brothers would point out what toys we wanted and after we got old
enough, my parents would let us know what the would like. We would
of course get the gifts (surreptitiously of course) and wrap them
and sneak them under the tree. Come Christmas morning we would open
the presents and be appropriately surprised and some times really
surprised, since we (us kids mostly) would get stuff we did not
expect.

I was the "geeky" kid and so wanted something to do with radio and
electronics. These things generally kept us amused for the next week
or so and then were promptly forgotten. Well except for the gift I
would get from my grandfather who and engineer. He would get me a
"grab bag" of assorted electronic goodies from a radio store in
Phillie. This would last until June. And I'll bet if cost, at that
time, all of three bucks.

My father passed away when I was 14 and I was the oldest. My mother
then moved us from up north down to south west Florida. Those first
two or three years were pretty lean and Christmas presents were not
in the cards, so to speak. We started a family tradition that lasted
for quite a few years. Sort of a secret Santa where we drew names
out of a hat, had to guess what that person wanted with out them
knowing about it and make the gift ourselves.

This worked out quite well and was a lot of fun. But as things got
better for all of us and we became gainfully employed, it slowly
faded away. Until we found ourselves, consciously or not, engaging
in a gift competition. Where the gift itself was more important than
the recipient or the giver.Not thinking about who we were getting a
gift for but rather more concerned that we did not look like some kind
of cheap skate.  This finally came to a head one year and nearly
ruined Christmas.

So we all got together and decided to forgo the traditional gift
exchange and just get together on Christmas. And if someone wanted
to give  a gift to someone else, that was OK but not required. And
they could do it when ever. Lately my sisters exchange between each
other. My brother with his family and we each try to get something
for my mother, since she is retired and lives on a fixed income. The
recipient of the gift is what's important and most of the time it's
something they want and would not get for them selves.

And when we do get a gift we are grateful since we know it's from the
heart and not the wallet.  I still make the gifts I give sometime and put
a good deal of time and effort into them. And I know it's something that
the person wants and/or needs but for what ever reason has not acquired
for themselves. Oh and In my case I try to make it a surprise as well.

C 

"The social policy advisors Obama has picked are leaders in the abortion business and honchos of the homosexual lobby. They aim to remake the U.S. in their own image. If they succeed, the entire U.S. will look like Greenwich Village during the Halloween parade, dog collars and all."

Merry Christmas, everyone.  May there one day be peace on earth, good will towards man.

Here's a reason to hope ... thank you, Michael.  I love you. 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F0LgjBauf70

    This is the second in the series of Inspection columns inspired by Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianites. His body: a metaphor for how little others have understood who he really was before and after, crucifixion.

As the body twitched and quivered into the arms of Death; animals approached. They ripped out legs, broke off arms. Scratching out eyes with claws, others attempted to shred and plunge their way into his body so they might eat his heart. Yet for each body part taken another grew. Despite this amazing regenerative ability, the body was still a body; risen or not... nothing more: a mere vehicle for the man, the prophet, the "Savior." To this day they still fight over his carcass, regardless of the obvious, "He is not here."

As the years passed some animals were killed off by others, but there were always thrice fold to replace them. If their goal was to become the sole source for divining his message: they failed, for others will always understand his message in their own way.

     Who was this fellow, Jesus?

     What best represents who he was?

     His cup?

     Crossing oneself when passing an altar?

     His words?

     Oh, we know what the most stringent of orthodox Christians believe, not only because of the celebration of his birth placed at the end of this disciple-like twelve month cycle-circle, but because that view has long dominated humanity's vista; too often forced down our collective throats to the point of "gag." If it were up to the most fundamentalistic of the orthodox it would be all we are allowed to see, all we could consider; something that must lead to severe punishment if contradicted; as if just saying "happy holidays' instead of "merry Christmas" is actually some conspiracy, or vile crime. We may not burn or physically torment those considered heretics: those deemed theologically incorrect much any more, but we often go way out of our way to avoid offending those who use offense as mere method to silence others.

     I have always been intrigued by Jesus.

     Who was this man that inspires so much devotion? Who was this enigma who walked the sands of what is now Israel some odd 2,000 years ago, whose teachings have spread worldwide? We know that the myths which surround Jesus weren't born with him. They were around long before Jesus was born. Other deities and prophets have been supposedly "born of a virgin," or "raised the dead." There were many during that time who claimed to perform miracles.

     Jesus and stories about him have stayed with us. Not one of the other wannabe stories can match the depth of that story telling, or the amount of stories told; leaving fading footprints in the form of footnotes being washed away by time... at best.

     I am sure the orthodox would insist they; and they alone, have kept the flame alive; firmed up his footprints so all can know the one, the only, "true" religion. But what is "orthodox" changes, from Jews in high positions who led Jesus to the cross, to the Puritans who fined any sign of celebrating his birth. Yet Jesus lives on... not because, but despite, orthodox attempts to maintain theistic purity.

     Jesus has resisted being nailed down by any one group of believers; any single sect, ever since he was born; probably on some date other than what we celebrate. Throughout history, when the Catholic Church, or otherwise orthodox, or Fundamentalists, have attempted to anchor him to a singular kind of cross, he has ripped himself free. People flock to him from all kinds of theological persuasions, and various variations; interpretations, of his story. And his story has embraced them.

     New interpretations of his story have grown; become controversial movies, despite attempts to create serious shrinkage.

     Christmas wrappings.

     All these variations and interpretations remind me of Christmas wrappings.

     The kind of Christmas presents Jesus still gives are actually wrapped in interesting paper: learning from each other; through discussion and the scholars who have studied and assessed the various scriptures both in the Bible, and writings banned from it. The orthodox have a long list of banned gifts. They're checking it twice. Snooping into lives to decide who they consider naughty, or nice. But no matter how hard they try, stories and interpretations of stories, live on, revive: ripping themselves off of crosses and rise again.

     The power of words is amazing, isn't it?

     On a website called The Chimp, a few weeks ago, we gathered; as often we do: believers and not, in what I consider a holy event: discussion. One thread claimed Jesus was Black.

     Here was my response to the "Jesus was Black" claim...

"This is only true if you accept the rather absurd premise that racial make up is either Black or White: the same mistake Neo Cons and rabid fanatics of all kinds make about life in general."

'A man of color?"

"Yes."

"Not 'white?'"

"Certainly."

"But even the question betrays, once again, our tendency to focus on form, not substance, on the absurdly inconsequential rather than the crucial."

"To paraphrase..."

'It's the message, stupid.'

"With the excesses of Nicaea, provable biblical alterations (see Bart Ehrman's many books) and all we don't consider; there's enough here to argue about and discuss. What did he really say? What did he mean? Even the disciples didn't agree."

"Instead our arguments seem to center around the intellectual equivalent of what flavor bubblegum he might prefer."

     I understand: my response seems to contradict all I've typed so far.

     Imagine the most perfect Christmas gift possible. A gift to all. One that works in so many ways; a gift that for a boy can be a bike, for a girl a doll, for an old man a loving old woman to live his final days with, a gift that makes otherwise self absorbed give unto others... This, intended or not, is the gift Jesus gives us.

    And I intentionally smeared my own cynical opinions all over one interpretation, one revision?

    So, yes, by posting that opinion I felt more than a little guilty. Who am I to criticize attempts to unwrap the gifts he continues to give with one's unique perspective? Yes, who am I? "I" am the same as they: a person with the right to contribute to that vision; not all that unlike yet another stumbling, bumbling... always behind the Master and his message, disciple. The very kind of person Jesus reached out to, attempting to touch them with words... hoping they'll find meaning.

     Hey, if it brings them closer to the message, then that's a wonderful thing. I was also reminded of Klan members and suicidal cultists who abuse this these gifts use Jesus as if he were a weapon or some purer, holier than thou, hand grenade.

     The story of Jesus means nothing if we cannot understand it; each in our own unique ways, and attempt to bridge gaps between our differences; learn from each other. I was simply sharing my own perspective, hoping to learn too.

     None of this is new. Indeed one must call it a "tradition."

     Squabbling amongst followers is as old as his ministry itself. The disciples fought amongst themselves. According to Bart Erhman, in Lost Christianities, the Ebionites attacked those who would eventually become the more successful; orthodox... winning side, if you wish... shortly after the crucifixion. They believed, for example...

"Peter, not Paul, is the true authority for understanding the message of Jesus. Paul has corrupted the true faith based on a brief vision... Paul is thus the enemy of the apostles, not the chief of them... a heretic to be banned."(Pg 184)

    Let's flip this theological coin...

    The Marcionites, of course, would have probably felt comfortable switching Peter with Paul, Paul with Peter in that paragraph. Some followers; various kinds; including some of the Gnostic sects, might have inserted Mary in the authority position. Others, soon to be considered orthodox, would consider Mary's gender closer to "enemy..." a unique circular firing squad made up of the same names of quarreling folk musicians.

    Yes, I did manage to find some way to use that joke a second time, if you remember my previous column on this subject.

    Sue me.

    My lawyers eagerly await your call at 1-800-SUE-AKEN. That's right, 1-800-SUEAKEN. Operators aren't waiting.

    There are many stories of Paul and Peter visiting and revisiting "churches," if one can really call them that during a Christian meets lion era, attempting to correct what the other had taught. Are these true stories? Well, let's just admit that the accepted text of the Bible more than hints at such squabbling between disciples; so it seems likely.

    Little is known beyond the manger story until his ministry. Luckily, as Bart Ehrman points out in Lost Christianities, various stories have been snatched, sometimes literally, from history's fire; like The Infancy Gospels. One can be assured many of the stories in Infancy were tales that Nicaea would never have approved in any version of the Bible. Even if true, they don't reflect well upon the image they wished to carefully craft. In one, Jesus strikes a child dead who won't play with him: then raises him from the dead later. In another he models bird from clay only to be told it was the Sabbath, so he gives them life and they fly away. Not as bad as the first, but back when these books were debated violating the Sabbath was more problematic.

    After killing a teacher who punished Jesus for being a wise guy, pun intended, Joseph told Mary...

"Do not let him go outside. Anyone who makes him angry dies." (Pg. 205)

    I ask again... are these stories true? Probably not. But like the stories Nicaea accepted that many now insist must be true "word for word..." can you imagine what they might be saying about those who walk our streets and inhabit our TV screens 2,000 years from now? How might stories about Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama, or George Bush, change hundreds of years from now... thousands of years? And we have a lot more power individually and collectively; a lot more sources to help keep the stories straighter than they ever had. Not that we use them all that well. The path has always been more than a little crooked. If just a few years later some believe the poorly placed lie "Saddam never let the inspectors in," what chance does truth have?

    More of a chance than 2,000 years ago.

    The light provided by our mass media culture is powered thousands of watts, billions of pages, an almost infinite number of dots on screens. And, yes, these are paths that the bleak, pitiful blackness of convenient lies use. Yet all it takes is a few, maybe even one, to make the light a bit more bright; less bleak. There are trillions of individual avenues on which truth might ride worldwide, waves on which might surf into our auditory canals... somewhere, somehow the truth usually has a chance; no matter how small or insignificant. Back then: pretty much none of the above. A story told and passed on may have done so more slowly, but had much more unchallenged power.

    The very word "gospel" has a double meaning due to just how effective Nicaea was in establishing a claim of "absolute truth," insinuating that anything not "gospel" is a lie, a con, dishonest and heretical. This was, perhaps, the ultimate attempt to glue, nail, spike and weld the corpse of Christ into a cross of one design. It almost succeeded, yet never will. Jesus, or at least his myth, is too powerful to be held by any mortal sacrifices made in the name of one set of believers or another.

    While it is true that mass murder has been committed in his name, without that name one can be sure those eager to commit genocide, fratricide... as well as all the gruesome ways to slaughter each other kill with or without a "cide," would simply find some other way to contribute to the collective moral suicide of the human race.

    Jesus didn't do this to us: we did.

    Many of the words Jesus is claimed to have said point at us like Marley. He is every ghost; we are Scrooge: hoarding what we think only we have an exclusive right to, sharing what we have in pittances. His ministry reaches beyond the grave, knocks on the door of the human heart whispering, "Let me in." This is the real strength of Jesus and his story, though those who claim to be the only true purveyors of his message will do anything to convince you otherwise.

As the body twitched and quivered into the arms of Death; animals approached. They ripped out legs, broke off arms. Scratching out eyes with claws, others attempted to shred and plunge their way into his body so they might eat his heart. To this day they still fight over a carcass that should be gone by now, but keeps regenerating. But despite this amazing regenerative ability, the body was still a body; risen or not... nothing more: a mere vehicle for the man, the prophet, the "Savior." They've displayed his supposed parts; what he held or may have been wrapped in, a cup, piece of a cross... as if they have magical properties and hold the secret to his powers. Perhaps they will never realize, "He is not here."

    From birth to death we have fought to be by his side, but too often listen only to our own perspective, or insist those who agree with us are his only chosen messengers; the only ones on his side. This battle is reflected in the Bible, in all the books never accepted into the Bible and in all the differing faiths. Most of all... it's reflected in those so tired of how we treat such disagreements and discussions; the single mindedness, that they shun the topic totally.

    Jesus did not choose those who were closest to him who agreed with each other. Why have we insisted on doing so since?

    I believe even if we misunderstand his message, Jesus would want us talking about, discussing and reaching out to each other: attempting to understand his ministry. The real miracle really wasn't fish and loaves, walking on water or tears from some statue. The real miracle is he lives on in our attempts to understand and be more like we think he might wish us to be. This despite all we are told has to be; must have been: nothing more and nothing else possible.

    No other human in human history comes close to achieving this miracle born thousands of years ago. It's not a flashy kind of miracle like multiplying bread or walking on water, though one might argue it is one way to raise what some the dead again and again... despite bullets, bombs, beheadings and torture.

    Miracles do happen. They're just not always quite what we expect, or believe, them to be.

                                                              -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2008
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Right Reserved

President Bush took the rare and possibly unprecedented step of revoking a pardon he granted just yesterday.  A Brooklyn developer was among the 19 people pardoned by Bush, and a quick internet search yesterday revealed that a) Isaac Toussie is named in what is possibly the largest real estate discrimination suit in New York State history, which is still ongoing, and that b) Isaac's father Robert Toussie gave $28,500 to the Republican National Committee this year, as well as thousands more to Republican candidates. Locally, the pardon itself was first reported (as far as I know) by the Times' City Room blog. The background and contributions were reported by Raw Story and Ben Smith, who noted it was an odd time to be pardoning someone involved in mortgage scams.

The White House explanation for revoking the pardon is that "information that has subsequently come to light" in news reports changed Bush's mind. But let's be clear - there is nothing in news reports today about Isaac Toussie's crimes that wasn't in news reports available yesterday, other than outrage from New Yorkers who claim they were victimized by the Toussies. The only new piece of information is Robert Toussie's contributions, which came just months before his son's pardon petition and, according to federal campaign finance records, are his first ever political contributions, at least since 1992, the earliest searchable election cycle.

WH spokeswoman Dana Perino tells the AP, "The [WH] counsel's office [which recommended the pardon to Bush] generally doesn't include vetting of political contributions in its reviews on such matters, as that would be 'highly inappropriate on many levels.'" Fair enough. Political contributions ought not be a factor in determining worthiness for a pardon one way or the other.

Meanwhile, Ben Smith says, "I'd love to know the backstory on this one, because one factor -- the father's $28,500 contribution to the RNC -- seemed both like a)not enough money to buy a pardon and b)to create an appearance of conflict that made it a heavier lift, not a lighter one." Perhaps, but my question is, if not for the contribution, how did this pardon get into the hands of White House counsel Fred Fielding in the first place?

The White House appears to be trying to explain away the pardon reversal by saying that the Justice Department's pardon attorney had not reviewed the pardon request, which is usual procedure, and therefore Bush would like to give him a chance to do so. It's as if they're saying, "Oops! We forgot to run it by our pardon guy. The guy whose job is to look at pardons - we forgot to ask him."

But here's the thing - the pardon couldn't go through the Justice Department, because they don't accept applications from people who were convicted less than five years ago, as Toussie was. So a pardon for Toussie would have to go around Justice and straight to the President (who is, of course, welcome to pardon anyone he wants).

Granted, I don't know much about pardons and how applications get made. Maybe it's standard for the White House counsel to be entertaining pardon requests from all sorts of recently-convicted folks who can't go through Justice. But again, it seems to me the question here is how this request got to Fielding's desk and approved by him. The contributions are certainly one thing. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Isaac Toussie's lawyer is Bradford Berenson, who was...an associate White House counsel during Bush's first term.

I'd say you get what you pay for - either in political contributions or in politically connected lawyers.  Frankly, I'm just amazed such a shameless White House took it back.

If you haven't already, I recommend you read what Cole, perhaps the nations premiere Middle East scholar,  has to say of Etheridge's and Warren's appearances at the Muslim Public Affairs Council conference in Long Beach.  It is indeed illuminating. 

How can we influence the media to stop destructively over "reporting", misconstruing and otherwise boring us to tears about the Obama team's involvement in the Blago affair? Investigate Blago - fine - but stop trying to create a story and an ominous link when there is none. Maybe we should turn off any so called news outlet when they report anything but the facts in this matter. That includes Politico. com which seems to have made a hobby of this story. They actually have it as their top of the page lead right now. Absolutely outrageous! Enough!!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16851.html  

Tick, tock.  Tick, tock.  How long until the fuse on the TORTURE OF TODDLER'S TESTICLES burns down and ignites a blast that blows the lid completely off the Bush administration torture regime?

I'm doing my part, having coined the phrase, as well as propagating as much as possible.  You may google the expression torture toddler testicles (without even using QUOTES around it!) to get an idea of the good work I've done on this subject.

Remember this.  Jesus loves the little children....all the children of the world...

That meme is MUCH deeper seated than any bogus Jack Bauer invented new-age nonsense.   Do your best to help spread the word.

Since this policy of torturing the testicles of toddlers is still THE LAW of the land (see, Yoo, John), which intrepid reporter will suggest using it against the individuals in the banking system (now being investigated by TERRORIST INVESTIGATION teams pulled off foreign duty)?

We might get to the bottom of the corruption in the banking industry a little sooner if we take the KIDS of the TERRORIST BANKERS and apply a little pressure to their dangling jiggly bits (while the parents are forced to watch).  Otherwise, the attack we fear most, may come in the form of a TOTAL meltdown and implosion of our ENTIRE SOCIETY.

Spare the kids and spoil the economy?  WWJD?

Enjoy.

A new poll shows 82% of Americans approve of the Obama transition moves. It must be time for Greg Sargent to put out  another sarcastic post on the "Angry Left and Obama" and we can get the Obama chorus here to sing lustily in support of whatever Obama and his administration is doing. Nevermind that it is readying an escalation in Afghanistan or cuddling up to the bigotry of a demagogic bigot like Warren. Nevermind the DLC-tilt of his administration. And nevermind the actual Obama policy (already effected) of supporting the Paulson $700 billion giveaway (that Obama helped herd through congress. We all know  a poll like this shows Obama is making all the right moves; and poll numbers really don't ever change much. Whining on the left is tiresome and they have been doing it for eight solid years. Enough!

Barack Obama should take his oath of office on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.  It would come one day after the MLK holiday and would send such a powerful message on so many levels.  It would mark a completion of the circle begun by Lincoln and advanced by MLK.  The Mall will be full anyway, so just have everyone turn around.

Now that Tennessee is buried in toxic coal waste sludge, I wonder if Michigan will declare that they should get no bailout from the federal government.

Fundies just love to pick a line from scripture, isolated from everything around it, and call it a definitive law.  Generally it drives me nuts.  But this morning I had an "aha moment" while viewing these poignant photos of California families threatened with forced divorce:  The words of Jesus simply popped into my mind:  "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

Now, how clear a sign is that?

If the fundies can do it, we can do it.  So tell your fundy friends this: 

what God has joined together, let no one separate

[Mark 10:9]

This line makes it clear that California spouses cannot be forcibly divorced.

And I would advise anyone who tries to break that Bond - that they do so at their peril.   

Consider the risks here, those of you who seek to forcibly divorce a couple.  Consider the risks of going against this scripture.  Unless you can find another passage that gives you permission to force divorce, then it might be much wiser to leave well enough alone, as in judge not.

Also, consider this.  Right after Jesus mentions (in Mark) that no one can "separate" what God has joined toether - here comes this passage about children:

Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.

Now this makes it even clearer, doesn't it?  Think of those California children whose parents are being threatened with forcible divorce.  Remember, "let no one separate" that family.

Families belong together. 

So I pass this along.  In the interest of saving fundy souls.  Love your neighbor.  And let your neighbor be.  Don't meddle with unions that are not yours.

Christmas.  A time for Peace.  A time to appreciate family.

Let there be peace earth.  And let it begin with us.
  

Not just because you laid off decent employees and rehired them for less. Suggestion: insted of the fancy annoying ads, try giving your employees a bonus, and quit making me go to your site when I'm trying to get to my dashboard.

"The Holy Family with Saint Anne"

Peter Paul Rubens - Museo del Prado, Madrid

At Christmas, those who follow the teachings of that figure are urged to wish for 'peace on earth, good will to men' and to practice forgiveness and to love their enemies. Who are those enemies that Christians are supposed to forgive and to love?

Read more »

Buried in the coverage of the Big Three "bailout" is the larger story of the role the decade-old assault on middle class wages has played in this expanding economic meltdown.

In exchange for a $17.4 billion cash infusion, the Bush administration's "lifeline" would seem to exact concessions from all of the auto industry's major stakeholders: the UAW, management and shareholders. Predictably, however, it is union givebacks that have garnered the most attention. It would seem that union wages, along with the health and pension benefits guaranteed current and retired workers, make American car companies uncompetitive.

Nonsense.

It's true that benefits provided to current and retired workers -- expenses that are largely socialized in other industrial nations -- do add materially to the cost of employing an American auto worker. But peel away legacy costs and benefits, and a UAW worker earns around $60,000 per year. That compares to about $52,000 in non-union plants. 

For DeMint, Shelby and the rest of the Republican ideologues who have chosen this issue and this time to go union-busting, $60,000 per year is simply too much to pay a full-time American worker who makes cars for a living. Yet they seem quite comfortable with outsized executive compensation that grants Rick Waggoner of GM $9.3 million in total compensation. This is nearly ten times what Toyota pays its CEO, Hiroshi Okuda, even though GM has been losing market share to Toyota for years.

Back when the Bush administration announced its "economic stimulus plan," I did a thumbnail analysis of the economic impact that would come from raising the average wage paid to Wal*Mart workers. By my totally unscientific, unlearned calculation, increasing hourly wages from the current $9.68 ($17,000 per year at 34 non-benefit-eligible hours) to $16 per hour would produce $15.6 billion dollars in direct economic stimulus -- over $45 billion at a 3/1 multiple. Sure, it would have reduced Wal*Mart profit by $547 million, or 6 pecent. But shareholders willing to pay CEO Lee Scott $17 million ought to suck it up and take one for the team, right?

Yeah, right.

Our decade-long experiment in wealth concentration has been a disgusting failure. We ask workers to be more productive, yet willingly reward executives with compensation far in excess of the value they contribute to their organizations or the economy. When confronted with the reality that wage stagnation and cost-shifting was creating an expanding class of working poor, politicians answered with the Ownership Society. They papered over the problem with stated-income mortgages, home equity loans and credit cards. Now debt is over 100 percent of disposable income. The chickens have come home to roost.

Squeezing more work out of fewer employees is hardly a prescription for a sustainable American economy. Creating jobs that provide security and a living wage is a start. We should make a down payment on that effort by convincing the Neanderthals on Capitol Hill to save their union-busting vitriol for a time when workers don't need unions to protect their standard of living.

Everything was turning sour.  I had run out of tobacco for the month. My porn site went down.
My children's packages will not arrive until the week end. And then, like God was looking down upon me and saw my grief, I received the following in my email:



OFFICE OF THE SENATE HOUSE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN PAYMENT
(RESOLUTION PANEL ON CONTRACT PAYMENT)
IKOYI-LAGOS NIGERIA

Our Ref: FGN /SNT/STB
Your Ref.


ATTENTION BENEFICIARY:

This is to officially inform you that we have verified your contract/
inheritance file and found out that why you have not received your
payment is because you have not fulfilled the obligations given to
you in  respect of your contract/inheritance payment. Secondly, we have
been informed that you are still dealing with the none officials in the
bank all your attempts to secure the release of the fund to you.

We wish to advise you that such an illegal act like this have to stop
if you wish to receive your payment since we have decided to bring a
solution to your problem.

Right now we have arranged your payment through our swift card payment
centre Asia pacific, that's latest instruction from the new
president,Alhaji Umar Musa Yaradua Federal Republic of Nigeria.

This card centre will send you an atm card which you will use to
withdraw your money in any atm machine in any part of the world,but
the maximum is Ten Thousand United States Dollars per day.

So if you like to receive your funds in this way please let us know by
contacting the atm payment department director and also send the
following information as listed below.

1. Full name:............................
2. Full address: .......................
3. phone:....................................
4. Your age:...........................
5. Gender :...........................
6. Occupation :.......................
7. Country :.............................

However, kindly find below the contact person
Prof.Ehis Papieye
Integrated payment department

(CONTACT DETAILS)
Name:Prof.Ehis Papieye
Email:atmcard-remmitance@live.com
Tel:+234-70-6059-9763


Now I can only procure ten thousand dollars a day, but I shall not forget my friends at TPM

What value, other than commercial, is there in MSNBC and other broadcast outlets, letting us here the anguished calls for help to 9-1-1 operators from panicked people caught in yesterday's torrent of water in Maryland?

I know how you will answer this, or at least suspect how you will answer this, so I have another question, below the fold, so to speak:

Read more »

M:

This story made me weepy.  Back in October, Archway cookies shuttered a plant in a small town in Ohio without warning.  About 300 people suddenly lost their jobs, and none of them ever expected to work at the plant again.

When it promised to reopen the bakery, Lance gave all 300 former Archway workers a $1,500 prepaid debit card.

So, even with companies using the lousy economy as an excuse to give the shaft to employees and customers who have supported them for years, there's at least ONE company that is run by decent human beings.  I plan to go find some Lance products for our Christmas stockings and I hope everyone else will support this responsible employer.

The U.S. Senate, despite the intent of some of the Framers, is not the House of Lords.    Even the House of Lords is not The House of Lords  It is no longer an  hereditary body.  I have long ago memories of supporting various members of the Kennedy family.  In 1960, as a kid, I campaigned with Myrna Loy for Jack.  Yes, that Myrna Loy.  It was a big deal for me.  In 1965, on returning from the Selma March, a friend and I reported our experiences to Bobby Kennedy's Senate Office.  I think Ted Kennedy's early endorsement of President-elect Obama was magical.  Caroline Kennedy  seems a fine person, but she has not earned the job.

There is a difference between coming from a political family and a sense of familial entitlement.  Nancy Pelosi comes from a political family.  She made her own way in politics.  No doubt she learned much on her father's knee, but it's a long long way from Baltimore to San Francisco.   

There may be a case for appointing someone who will not run when up for election.  They may keep the seat warm, try to complete the work of the person who vacated the seat, or wish to serve to bring up an issue which normal electoral politics ignores.  Ms. Kennedy is only seeking to jump start a political career.  The U.S. Senate is an august and powerful body.  It is not the House of Lords.

Rep Jerrold Nadler was on Democracy Now yesterday and he said some things that make me realize the President is in fact a dictator for the period he is in office. Nadler said the following.

"A president, anyone in this country, must be subject to the rule of law and not above it. The people are sovereign, not the president. And someone who says that if the president does it, it's legal, betrays the Constitution and betrays the entire goal of American government, which is to have rule by the people, not by a king."

But this was preceded by a discussion of the pardon power.

"The pardon power is pretty unlimited. Some people would say totally unlimited... It is entirely possible that this President Bush will say, "I hereby pardon anyone who, between September 11th, 2001 and December 31st, 2008, allegedly violated the statutes against torture," or whatever. He could do that. That's a preemptive pardon. I think it's wrong, as a matter of--not as a matter of law. It ought to be wrong as a matter of law."

That the pardon power is unlimited means that when the president does something illegal, he could simultaneously pardon himself for that crime. In other words, Nixon and Cheney were/are correct. The only exception to this absolute power is spelled out in the Constitution in Article 2, Section 2.

"and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

In other words, if Congress is unwilling or unable to impeach and doesn't move on that before pardons are issued, then the President is de facto King of the United States. Ironically, Nadler thinks impeachment is off the table for several reasons. But it may be the only mechanism for justice in this case. With the recent confessions from Cheney, expect blanket pardons.

Rod Blagojevich and O.J. Simpson lead an all-star cast in this musical parody salute to famous felons. Take a look and we think you'll agree -- what we do to this Elvis classic is criminal! Special appearances by: Paris Hilton, Michael Vick, Martha Stewart, Jon Stewart & David Letterman.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBdkTaoavXI

 

SEE MORE PARODIES AT http://parodyandson.blogspot.com

 

!!FREE HOLIDAY SHIPPING!! Send this parody to someone today and guarantee arrival for Christmas

 

Parody & Son - Purveyors of Premium Parodies since Last March.

Once upon a time CEO's actually built companies for their long term viability not their short term gain and their compensation bore a resonable ratio to that of other employees. My 90-year-old father  definitely was one of these Old School CEO. 

OK, Obama's in Hawaii right now with a little free time on his hands. He's said in the past TPM is among his favorite websites. I don't know if he he scans the reader blogs; if not, maybe some staffer in his transition team can pass this on to him or his inaugural organizer.

The idea is simple: Ask Bruce Springsteen to sing Kumbaya.

Ideally, on the National Mall. I would love to hear one or two million people joining in; the words are so easy and the tune is so catchy. Just Bruce on acoustic to start, then maybe the band can rock it up a notch.

I shouldn't have to explain the symbolism. An African song that resonated and laid down roots in North America. The anti-Obama knock was that as president he would want everyone to sit around, holding hands, singing Kumbaya. Well, we won, bitches. So here you go.

But, especially if performed by Springsteen, it would be a self-deprecating poke at the earnest idealism the campaign sometimes evoked. At the same time, it would reclaim a perfectly fine anthem of faith, hope and unity from the ridicule heaped on it during the campaign.

I definitely want to hear it during the inauguration ceremonies. I know it could be sung by Joan Baez, or some black church choir -- but then it would come off all serious and mushy, just like the Republicans predicted.

No, it's gotta be sung by a white, rust-belt rocker with his shirt sleeves rolled up. The song, for all its simplicity,  is strangely mystical and emotional. Its delivery needs to be muscular. The subtext: "Yeah, we're all peace-and-love, man. But we can kick your ass."

I can see it already. Anyone else on board?

 

A Merry Christmas Song

We've got GM and Yukos
and Mital and Eskom,
ConEd and Huaneng
Monsanto and Exxon

But do you recall
The most famous polluter of all?

Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer
Had a carbon-emitting nose
Combined with flatulent emissions
You would even say we're hosed

All of the other reindeer
Counted up his carbon footprint
They found his annual output
Was roughly between cars and cement

Then one snowy Christmas Eve
Sarah Palin came to say,
"Rudolf with your nose so big
Melt some permafrost so I can dig"

How Exxon and Chevron loved him
As they bored into the shelf with ease
Sorry abut that pink slip
Some reindeers' hard to please

Merry Christmas to All

And to All a $700 billion bailout

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/obamas-vacation-a-test-for-hawaiis-governor/

When the U.S. House and Senate come back into session in early January, it will be a changed legislative body. There will be a number of new senators and House members, for starters. And most of them will be Democrats. But will it mean a real change, or just a change of bodies? It will be interesting to observe whether Congress can listen to its better angels, or whether it will in 2009 again be business as usual.

If they are smart -- Congress can easily renew the SCHIP children's health insurance program before it expires in March 2009. It could be one of the easiest and earliest successes possible. A recent poll showed that they could even garner widespread support for covering the children of legal immigrants, according to the Congressional Quarterly. And Congress is wisely considering adding a number of other health care measures to the economic stimulus package, the Washington Post reports, a clever way to "kill two birds with one stone."

If they are vigilant -- They will continue to investigate. There are pertinent committees chaired by smart peopole with no lack of situations that cry out for the light of day, and/or legislative fixes. ProPublica's recent investigative pieces include: Unsafe/unhealthy housing provided to Katrina victims; gaps in aviation security; as well as threats to the nation's water supply. The economic rescue program alone could occupy a dozen committees for a dozen months. Yahoo! News spotlights the banking bailout scandal regarding huge gifts to banking execs#. Another similar story points out that there has been no overall accounting of how the banks spent# the bailout monies.

If they are patriotic -- They will investigate the true nature of the loss of civil liberties in the past eight years, as chronicled by Tom Head at About.com/civil liberties. And they will investigate themselves as the peoples' guardians of constitutional protections in the process, as the latest Glenn Greenwald post at Salon.com suggests. Jeff Schweitzer at the Huffington Post reveals just how bizarre are Dick Cheney's recent revelations# on the administration's blatently lawless view of a unitary presidency. Will there be any criminal prosecutions? It remains to be seen.

If they are brave -- They will begin to try to bridge the partisan divide, the widest in a long time, according to a fascinating recent Congressional Quarterly study. And they should work hard to avoid intraparty divisions, that could be nudged along by spoiler Republicans, according to Politico.com.

If Congressional leaders are to be a match for our new presidential leader, they will turn over new leaves, letting go of their previously ineffectual tactics. There will be no more excuses in 2009.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo*" and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My "personal" post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics congress democratsleadership

Shorter Dick Cheney -->  Regret? No, no, agh!  Quelle horreur!

or

Shortest Dick Cheney --> Regret? Wha-? HellNO!


What is it with the concept/emotion of regret and people thinking it's a bad idea?  I should perhaps clarify -- it may be an emotion for some people but not for most.  Regret appears to be an emotion people regret or shirk away from.  Take for example --  Richard Cheney, (mostly known as Lynn's Dick, amongst my friends...) to whom regret is more a concept and one to which he gives a wide berth. 

Feeling a normal emotion, like regret,  may be too complicated for Dick Cheney, outgoing VP, who played a central role in promulgating controversial policies such as domestic wiretapping, using tactics of torture on detainees, and who came out of the Cheney Bunker proclaiming, in recent interviews, that this outgoing administration would have gone to war with Iraq, even if there had been no erroneous intelligence attaching Saddam Hussein to possession of weapons of mass destruction.  Now that's a tough man, no? 

Umn, no.

Not even when he waxes nostalgic about the fact that the current president is always accompanied with a --  

"football" which carries nuclear codes which could "He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen," Cheney said. "He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress; he doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in. It's unfortunate, but I think we're perfectly appropriate to take the steps we have."  

Mr. VP really wishes someone would follow him with that nuclear football.

But the really good news, this night before the eve of Christmas is that Darth Vader and Dick Cheney are not related!  I know Darth Vader (so do you - go to your nearest Blockbuster) and Dick Cheney is no Darth Vader.   I reject, renounce and denounce the use of the later as his nickname.  Darth Vader, at the end,  found his humanity, felt love and regret and turned away from the dark side. 

When I was a Republican, back in the day, I believed that no man should have the right to marry another man.  Nor a woman another woman.  I felt that unions such as theirs would ruin the validation of "true" marriages.

What is a "true" marriage, though?  I no longer know.

When I was a Republican, back in the day, I believed that government handed out too much and that would take away from our businesses, our industries, our commerce, our ways and means of making money.

Where does the money come from now, though?  I no longer know.

When I was a Republican, I thought that the flag and our amendments and our belief in the inherent right of our President were patriotic things that I should cling to.

What do I cling to now?  I no longer know.

Oh, wait.  I do know. 

I cling to my inherent belief that this country has sometimes made some huge mistakes, both recently and in the past.  And I cling to the belief that we are able to right this ship.

That's what I cling to, and you can all try to pry my fingers off that belief as hard as you can, but my fingers are clinging strongly, and this ship is not sinking.

'Tis the seaon to be jolly, unless you're a cat with a blocked bladder.  This I found out the hard way, today.  Well, actually, my cat Wallace found that out the hard way.   I just found out the monetary way.  He had the body that was suffering....I have the wallet that is hurting.  Me, I prefer a suffering wallet over a suffering body any day.

I thought it was a regular ole UTI, here today, gone some day shortly soon thereafter.  Just two nights ago, my cat Wallace was chasing fake mice around the room alongside his brother Willie.  He was happy as a cat who'd caught a lark.  But now and then, over the course of the past week, Wallace would get up and move to a corner and, um....how to say politely??.....lick his little kitty family jewels.  And growl.

Well, hell, if any guy I know could lick HIS family jewels, I'm sure he'd be growling too.  

But seriously, that was the first sign of trouble and it started a week ago.  

I am familiar with some of the signs of kitty UTI because, unfortunately, before I adopted Willie and Wallace from the North Shore Animal League (a no-kill pet adoption center in Long Island, NY) back in 2006, I lost my previous kitty Jupiter to kidney failure due to an unrecognized case of UTI.

I will not sadden you all with the particulars other than the fact that I did not get Jupiter to the vet's clinic in time and he ended up dying in my arms on a very heartbreaking Friday night in the middle of December of 2006.

Instead, I will tell you that I turned right around and adopted two seven month old brother kitties who had lost their hope of being adopted from North Shore just days later.  Each cat was supposed to cost me a donation of $75 each, which I was prepared to pay.  But the handlers and volunteers at NSAL were so grateful to see these two brother kitties (so much bigger and less cute than all the new young ones) get adopted together that they let me have them BOTH for $75 total.  I would've given more, but I spent the balance on toys and beds and food and accessories.

When I brought Willie and Wallace home, they were terrified of me and my apartment.  They really seemed to want their tiny cage back, that they had shared....where one slept in the litter box and the other slept on top of the food dish and water bowl.  They wanted their comfort zone, and it was a whole two days before Wallace allowed me to pet him.  When he allowed me to stroke his ears, he liked it so much he immediately rolled onto his back and let me stroke his belly....all the while purring.  So much for being afraid, eh?

Over the past two years, these boys have become my sons.  Literally.  They are My Boys.  Da Boyz.  

I keep Jupiter's cremated remains in a little urn up on the top of my bookshelf, so he can both be near me, and look over them, but otherwise, they know nothing of him.  They only know they are Da Bomb.  Da Boyz.

So when Wallace started moving beyond the growling while licking his balls stage, and moved very heartbreakingly quickly into the "Mommy, I'm sick and you don't know how to understand what I'm saying" stage last night, I got scared.  I panicked.  I called the vet and left a message to have them call me and let me come in today anytime after 2 PM when my office closed early for the holiday.

And they did.   They called me back this morning and said, bring him in as soon as you can.

Before I went to work, Wallace's health had so deteriorated that he could barely stand on his own four feet.  

When I got home from work I found him lying on the bathroom floor, unable to stand, with Willie sitting by his side, as if both nursing his sick brother and waiting for me.

I put Wallace in his crate and drove him to the vet and within three hours, he had gone through his life-saving procedure and was waking up, feeling better.

He will be spending the next three days in the hospital, recovering, and when he gets home on Friday he gets painkillers, antibiotics, and a new special diet that will last him (and his brother, because they eat together), a lifetime.

I'm very lucky that it snowed last weekend and I was not able to use the bonus I received at work to go Christmas shopping with.  Because my whole bonus just went towards my cat's surgery, hospitalization, meds, and food instead.

I was embarrassed to call my mother and tell her I'm coming to see her and my sister, brother-in-law, nieces and nephews sans gifts.  I sobbed and apologized to my mother for having spent all my money on my cat rather than on my family.

My mother said, "Don't be silly.  He's your baby.  What matters is he's safe, you're happy, and you're coming here to visit us for the holiday.  That is what matters."

So, never mind the fact that I usually blow my bonus on my family, buying gifts they don't always need or want.....what matters is that I spend the holiday with them, sharing laughter and good times and love.

What matters is that my family understands my beloved pet's health took precedence over gifts this year, and my family not only loves me anyway, but they all understand and would do the same.

What matters is that no matter how little we have to give, the gift of being ourselves is more important, and in ample abundance.

Happy holidays, everybody.  

What is HISTORY?  People will announce that HISTORY will absolve them in the end. It is almost as if HISTORY is a wise old man with a long beard.

Well w and Darth Vader have now begun to rewrite history. Cheney reminds me a little of John C. Calhoun, one of the worst human beings ever to reach the Senate or the Vice Presidency.

Instead of attempting to rationalize slavery or skip the subject in mixed company (i.e. company including northerners and southerners), Calhoun would rise in the senate and actually give a speech announcing  how proud he was of being a slave owner and the wonderful things that slavery accomplished for both the white man and the ' Negra'. I have read these speeches and it was only with the entrance of Cheney as VP that I began to understand why Calhoun's 'argument' caught on. At least in the South.

Akhenaton, the father of King Tut,  was a Pharaoh In Ancient Egypt, reigning in the mid 14th Century, B.C.E. He represented a a brief anomaly in the cultural evolution of this 5,000 year old civilization.

Without getting into the complexities of ancient Egyptian Religion, suffice it to say that the ancient Egyptians were polytheistic; they worshiped a multitude of gods and goddesses like Isis and Osiris and Horus.  They had several sun gods representing a merger of different tribal beliefs. Amon (or Amun or even Amen which is where we get our closure in prayer) Rah, and a stranger sun god introduced decades prior to the birth of Akhenaton, Aton.

Akhenaton had been born Akenamun., (like western European Monarchs, he had several names) literally something like Follower of the God of the Sun. He came to the conclusion that his god should come before all other gods.  Almost to the point of becoming a monotheistic religion.

He built a great city a good pace south from what is now Cairo, and moved his entire house to that location.

This new site would have the primary purpose of celebrating his new god.  Akenaton reigned for about 17 years and disappeared from the face of the earth. No one really knows what happened to him. But shortly after his death, his son was crowned Tutankamun (his origninal name Tutankaton).  Almost all of Akenaton's steles and stone carvings that celebrated the new One God, were destroyed.  The older religion(s) were reinstated and it was as if Akhenaton never lived.

Until the last century or so, there simply was no mention of Akhenaton. He did not exist. He had no history.

Eight or nine hundred years later, Herodotus wrote a tome that is recognized by many westerners as the first History.  The actual ancient Greek word from which we get our word meant literally : a relating. 

The book really was more an anthropological survey of different places and different cultures but the actual historical chapters were related with no documentation other than oral conversations.  There were no recitations of treaties or battle plans.  Historians today compare what Herodotus related with writings from his famous student Thucydides and others from the same period and later years in an attempt to verify what was related..

Since those ancient times, the party in power controlled what we refer to as 'history'  and anything written in contravention of the royal history was heresy  and threatened the heretic with exile or death.

The twentieth century demonstrated the most censored history with the onset of the totalitarian empires in Germany, Russian and China.

In a freer society,history is and always will be political.  The historian will pick and choose those tidbits that support his or her positions just the same as a current event is picked over by journalists and pundits. It seems Orwellian but it is nothing new.

The Bush Administration is simply writing its own history. 

That w was given the onus of a deep deep deep recession that he inherited from the evil Democratic Administration that preceded him.

That those awful terrrrrrrists, as w puts it, created the single greatest danger to the United States in its entire history.

 That w created a compassionate conservative rule.

An invasion of Iraq based upon intelligence that "every world leader' believed at the time.  Based upon the real threat of a potential creation of weapons of mass destruction.

 That w has provided us with a new perspectivewith regard to individual constitution rights during wartime and based upon threats from outside our borders.

That the current economic crisis was created by the opposing party's affinity for allowing poorer people to attain mortgages and purchase homes and/or the current economic crisis was caused by the vicissitudes of the free market.

Proof that strong measures of this administration kept our country safe from terrorists and I assume destruction from meteors and alien invaders from outer space.

Such is history.

 

The topic below was originally posted in my blog the <a href="http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com">Intrepid Liberal Journal</a>.

Longtime readers of the Intrepid Liberal Journal may recall my April 2006 posting entitled, <a href="http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2006/04/brain-fingerprinting-and-civil.html">"Brain Fingerprinting and Civil Liberties."</a> One mistake I made at the time was conflating the acronym FMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) with the term brain fingerprinting. Perhaps the most accurate generic term is brain mapping.

At the time I came across numerous references with respect to how brain mapping technology is implemented within India's criminal justice system. Specifically, I noted how an article in the March 17th, 2006 edition of <a href="http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&amp;id=27325">New Kerela</a> reported that Javed Shukat Khurshid, one of seven convicted murderers escaped police custody after sentencing. It read like any other newspaper might over such an event except for this:

"The court had earlier awarded life imprisonment to Javed and six others, including Ismail Barafwala, Amjad Khan Pathan, Mehboob Khan Pathan, Sajid Khan alias Anna, Usman Gani alias bhola and Younis Sheikh for rioting and murdering a man on November 11, 2003.

The judge awarded the sentence after considering the results of the brain finger printing tests performed on the accused, among other facts in this case."

As I learned two years ago, the integration of brain mapping technology with India's criminal justice system is common practice. Since then I've been concerned with how America reconciles sophisticated technology such as brain mapping and civil liberties. With respect to the federal judiciary the body politic typically obsesses over cultural issues and neglects to ask what predisposition or ideology any justice a president nominates will bring to cases involving high technology. Instead we wage culture wars over reproductive rights, gay marriage, affirmative action and so forth. I fear America  could integrate brain mapping technology into our criminal justice system without any debate or even notice it happening.

Two years ago I wrote:

"We know that polygraphs, commonly known, as lie detectors are unreliable. Whether FMRIs are reliable requires more empirical data. Perhaps such a device may prove effective in solving crimes or preventing terrorism. The potential to save lives certainly exists and can't be casually dismissed.

However, it's use means encroaching upon the province of an individual's thoughts and what government on Earth can be entrusted with such power? What is the legal framework for deploying this technology? Suppose employers coerce employees into signing waivers for FMRI scans to be administered? What if whistle blowers are intimidated into silence because of FMRI scans? Do the potential lives saved from crime prevention justify the potential abuse?"

These are the sort of questions future justices nominated by President-Elect Barack Obama for the Supreme Court as well as lower courts will have to answer. Now two years later I've come across a September 16th article of <a href="http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/September-October/Indian-Courts-Criticized-for-Using-Brain-Scans.html">Finding Dulcinea</a> that reports India's courts are being criticized for using brain scans.

Specifically, Finding Dulcinea reports how an Indian student named Aditi Sharma was convicted earlier this year of murdering her ex-boyfriend Udit Bharati by giving him a "Prasad" laced with arsenic. Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling, a brain-scanning technique developed by Indian neuroscientist Champadi Raman Mukundan was a component of the government's case against Sharma.

As the article notes, Sharma underwent a BEOS test, which involves an electroencephalograph measuring the electrical activity in her brain:

"Wearing a cap with 32 electrodes connected to a computer, Sharma sat quietly as she was read a description of the crime in the first person. When she recognized an event, specific parts of her brain that contain 'experiential knowledge' lit up and were detected by the BEOS computer."

With respect to Sharma's case, a July 21st edition of <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/This_brain_test_maps_the_truth/articleshow/3257032.cms">The Times of India</a> also referenced by Finding Dulcinea reported that,

"Aditi was found to have experiential knowledge for having a plan to murder Udit by giving him arsenic. Experiential knowledge was also found of her having gone to a temple to collect 'prasad', buying arsenic from a shop, calling up Udit and giving him the poison-laced 'prasad'.

Emotional experience of getting relieved and scared in connection with giving the arsenic laced 'prasad' to Udit was also found present on the BEOS test. Aditi also underwent a lie-detector test, which revealed deception on all relevant questions. The judgment copy dedicates about 10 pages on how the BEOS technique was conducted."

Ultimately, how technology is developed elsewhere has repercussions everywhere. Whatever you want to call it - FMRI scans, BEOS tests, brain mapping or brain fingerprinting - is technology scientists are actively pursing worldwide and monitoring the innovations of their peers. The BEOS system was created from technology and theories devised by several American scientists, including Lawrence Farwell, Emanuel Donchin and J. Peter Rosenfeld. Farwell is known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting">pioneer of brain fingerprinting</a> and even used the technology to help free innocent convict Terry Harrington after he had been falsely convicted of murder.

As I noted two years ago, the potential benefits of brain mapping technology should not be casually dismissed. Whether it's freeing an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit or preventing terrorism, the potential for good certainly exists. One could even argue that use of such technology completely obliterates the rationale for torture. How can the government justify water boarding when they have the ability to utilize a high-tech mind meld at their disposal?

But the technology remains unproven and right now the price for integrating it into our our justice system appears too high. India's experience with brain mapping technology is instructive and should give all of us pause.

As one of the aforementioned American scientists on the cutting edge of developing brain mapping technology, <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/15/asia/15brainscan.php">J. Peter Rosenfeld noted</a>:

"Technologies which are neither seriously peer-reviewed nor independently replicated are not, in my opinion, credible. The fact that an advanced and sophisticated democratic society such as India would actually convict persons based on an unproven technology is even more incredible."

Fallout from the Sharma case may result in India's criminal justice system no longer using brain mapping technology to administer justice. A six member committee led by India's director of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences concluded that there is <a href="http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/06/stories/2008090655050100.htm">"sub-optimal scientific basis for them to be used as evidence in court of law."</a>

Yet the technology continues to go forward. Private security firms and scientists are actively soliciting America's federal government to utilize brain mapping technology in the <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/379082_brainwave15.html">"war on terror."</a> What happens when the U.S. Supreme Court presides over cases in which brain mapping technology is a factor? How will the Supreme Court as well as lower courts rule if the technology is abused by the government or private corporations?

A decade ago President-Elect Obama taught constitutional law. Has he I wondered pondered what the legal framework for brain mapping technology should be? Will President-Elect Obama or his Attorney General ask any prospective nominee to the federal judiciary their view of how to reconcile technology and civil liberties? He should. And it's our obligation in the progressive community to remind him.

This raises the prospect law enforcement officers inside the United States are using sensitive information for personal gain. It appears law enforcement officers know of vulnerabilities within the air cargo shipment inspection systems; and could be exploiting entrenched conflicts between the air cargo company and customs for illegal objectives.

LAPD re JTTF on 9-11.

Do we have a clear picture of the perceived weaknesses the LAPD office was aware; and how he planned to exploit these weaknesses to facilitate the weapons transfer through this air cargo company, through Belize, to their final destination?

Muckraking, data mining:

• Google this [ Superior Court Case No. BC 209476 ]
• City's IP [ 161.149.221.240 ] server information [ Sun-ONE-Web-Server/6.1 ] with identifier [ AS4179 ].
• Look in their O:Drive for this records management policy: [ O:\NetDocs\Records Management\Docs\RECORDS DESTRUCTION POLICY.wpd ]

Read more »

Today I got an email from the ACLU soliciting donations because of the Madoff Ponzi effect. Alma Montclair writes:  Ponzi scheme appears to have affected two significant sponsors.

In the last couple of weeks, however, we've been hit hard in a way that no one could forecast. You have, no doubt, heard about the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme in which investors have been horribly defrauded of up to $50 billion. What you may not know is that two foundations that have been incredibly generous and longstanding supporters of our national security and reproductive freedom work have been victimized by the Madoff scandal -- forced to close their doors and terminate their grants.

That means that $850,000 in support we were counting on from these foundations in 2009 simply won't exist. We're dealing with that reality and remain committed to continuing our critical work in these areas.

I've been away for awhile. We elected Obama, so I'm not in such a word-warrior mood. But I had to pop back in after all the brouhaha over some of Obama's choices, be they for his cabinet or for his inauguration (::cough::Warren::cough::). I have no problem with people disagreeing with Obama; Lincoln's quote about the impossibility of pleasing all the people all the time clarified that piece of reality for me a long time ago.

But I'm saddened to see so many Democrats and Liberals attacking him for it. Why?

Because we are finally in power, and when we sharpen the knives and cry havoc over even the smaller decisions, we are acting like the Right Wing Haters whom we've resented for so long. Is that really all we see of our future in this country? That the leadership must volley between haters of one side or haters of the other? Or is there even the chance to do what Obama promised, and help CHANGE the way this country is run? No, not by changing every person--that really would be impossible enough to justify Hillary Clinton's "clouds will part and angels will sing" mockery from the primaries. All we have to do is change the majority of the country, and we do that by, in Ghandi's words, being the change we want to see in this world.

The argument that the Republicans and Conservatives acted that way when THEY were in power is a childish one. It's no more imaginative than an eye for an eye (leaving everyone blind) or fighting fire with fire.

How about believing that there are better options which, as the party in power, we can attempt to enact?

How about thinking outside the box--and inventing fire extinguishers?

Originally appeared on RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health and rights.

I pray. Everyday. Sometimes several times. This week begins a twelve day feast of the birth of Christ in my faith tradition, and it happens amidst other celebrations of light in the darkness in every faith. It is a good time to remember that light starts within each of us and spreads as we respect it in ourselves and others, no matter how challenging that may be. Some might say that it is in dark moments of challenge that we are meant to discover the light.

I'm also gay, so this holiday season has been consumed with a roller coaster of emotion and rage at the selection of Pastor Rick Warren to lead a prayer at Barak Obama's inauguration, where the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery will also pray.

Until January 20th, I will be praying that those of us who disagree with the selection of Rick Warren will not compound the challenges we face on our journey toward equality by being disrespectful, booing during prayer, or otherwise thinking that this moment is anything but what Obama intended -- modeling civility from a position of strength and conviction in his own progressive ideas about sexual and reproductive health and rights. I will pray that we see through the darkness toward the light within each of us, the light that allows us to see more compassionately those we don't understand or definitely disagree with, yes, even those who would deny our very existence. In demanding equality we are claiming our right to journey through life on our own terms. To achieve equality we must not deny others in our effort to be recognized.

Obama is not moving toward Rick Warren and social conservatives as Congressional Democrats have attempted to do by hushing progressives clamoring for changes to many policies on sexual and reproductive health. Instead Obama demonstrates that progressive ideas on gay issues, sex ed, contraception and abortion are moral choices. He invites Warren to join him, even while disagreeing on gay rights and abortion, to find new common ground. When news of the Warren invitation first broke, I noted that the challenge was now Warren's to lead hard-right social conservatives past partisanship and bitter divide that has characterized gridlock in Washington for much of the past 30 years, to a new place of civility that Obama is attempting to create in our politics. It appears Warren is taking some initial steps in Obama's direction.

These are generational changes we are participating in and they are being led and defined by arguably the most progressive new administration in history. Obama recognizes that to get movement on the policies we must change, our democracy requires change as well -- this was the premise of his campaign -- and it is the surest path toward full equality strategically. Democracy is not designed to produce instant reward, does not offer immediate gratification, is not about wholesale change. It is messy, takes time and most importantly requires we understand that we must do the careful, respectful work of education to bring people who fear change along on our journey.

Anthony B. Pinn has a tremendous piece today about this at Religion Dispatches, in which he concludes:

It is unreasonable to think President-elect Obama can or should resolve the conflict over religiously informed opinions when this very task has befuddled religious leaders for centuries. Obama will do well if he can help us make the tension between religious worldviews creative and an arena for fruitful exchange. What we can hope for is management of and respect for our religious differences and an attempt to map out ways to harness the energy of our shared quest for life meaning, for a greater sense of who, what, when, and where we are. And, in this way we might tame the more harmful aspects of our religious and theological orientations. Will we achieve this taming of our more harmful theologically-fueled tendencies...not likely, but it's a task worth the effort regardless of the outcome.

Obama is making this effort, and the measure of his success isn't the contentment of any particular group; but the ability of each group to voice its discontent, its disagreement and push a national conversation forward. Yes, dislike his selection for the invocation, and voice this dislike; but recognize that Obama's call for common ground will mean not always getting what you want.

 

As a community gay people are tired of waiting, of not getting the equality, not that we want as Pinn writes, but that we deserve, as Americans, and most importantly as children of God (for believers).

Are we more tired than women? More tired the African Americans? More tired than the current wave of brown immigrants coming to this nation of immigrants? More tired than under-educated or economically disadvantaged whites? Are we more tired than the many religions that make up the most diverse and religious country on the planet who are continually disregarded when someone says "this is a Christian nation" and whose faiths will not be represented at the inauguration prayers?

Those who have held the moral authority, as gay people do now, have always been long-suffering, non-violent and respectful. The shoulders we stand on in this moment understood that when caught between rocks and hard places, it is the slow erosion of trickling water that softens the hard edges. They left the throwing of rocks, the verbal and literal stoning, the torrent of the fire hoses spraying water against flesh, the beating, bashing and lynching to those on the wrong side of history. The glacial pace of change is frustrating and every group excluded from the promise of equality in America sees that slow pace as our nation's tragic flaw. It is also what allows each of us to fall in love with America as each generation works to fulfill her promise in new ways and thus remain a light of freedom to many suffering around the world.

That we might be entering a time when it is possible for us all, as Americans, to solve intractable problems of government with less animosity is a sign of hope.

There are iconic moments in history that have defined every struggle for equality. But if we who disagree with Warren disrupt a prayer, and specifically a prayer at the inaugural of the first African-American President in American history, the iconic moment captured on that historic day will cede moral high ground and goodwill progressives now hold. The gay community continues to deal with its own racial struggles within our community and black gay men and women understand the challenges in ways many white gays do not. To act out during a prayer will not help our cause where we most need the help, on gay issues and HIV/AIDS, within black churches.

Students in Georgia listened to George Wallace standing in the doorway, faced threats and derision, but quietly worked for change and won their rights. They sat at lunch counters where they were not welcome, quietly and simply attempting to order food from people who denied their humanity. Their quiet courage and presence won their rights. People marched and sang wishing President Kennedy would do more, some demanding it, many vocally frustrated by the political reality of the times. Women marched for decades just to be able to vote and then to have bodily autonomy and still await equal pay. Poor people of all races have always struggled to be heard, respected, educated, and employed -- and during these tough economic times more iconic images of disparity between rich and poor are being etched in our minds.

Those historic and iconic images changed hearts and minds and led us to this historic election and inauguration. We who disagree with Warren can listen respectfully for 90 seconds without creating a negative iconic image of people disrupting prayer -- and we can continue to fight strategically for the rights that are ours by birth. We risk too much moral authority -- the same that Obama is using to reach out to Warren -- by giving in to rage and emotion and disrupting a solemn moment. We can create positive iconic images in keeping with the respectful and non-violent traditions of all civil rights movements by listening to those we disagree with, and standing firm for our lives and loves with every other long-suffering movement for equality, and in doing so, support Barack Obama in his efforts to bring real and lasting change to our democracy, leading toward the full equality we all seek.

The promise of nature in winter is that light will return even in the face of the darkest day. It is the same promise that every faith tells different stories to teach at this time of year. In many ways, it is the genius and promise of America -- that in the face of darkness we can choose either to add to it, or instead find light within and with quiet strength and grace shine our light in a way that others will see and greet, and be thankful for giving us the opportunity to learn again that there is light within each of us. That we can choose differently. That in choosing to act from strength and light, we create the change we seek.

 

The marriage issue is exactly why church and state should remain separate. Unfortunately, marriage has transformed into a religious institution and has infected civil law. Churches have gotten involved and created a wedge issue that is allowed to discriminate where it otherwise could not.

The 14th amendment enforces equal protection. Your citizenship is a guarantee that your rights will be enforced equally regardless of who or what you are. Civil contracts fall under this federal protection, and marriage is a civil contract. The key is to peel away the word marriage entirely. The GLBT community and the religious community are drawing a line in the sand that should not exist.

All marriages should be considered civil unions under state and federal law. As long as the civil union does not violate state and/or federal law (polygamy, bigamy, incest, statutory rape, etc.), then that civil union is valid. Marriage is a religious institution, and if a couple decides that they want a marriage, then by all means they can do so provided the church is willing to preside over the wedding. If the Catholic church, LSD, or Saddleback do not want to sanctify gay marriage, then that is their religious right. If the Unitarians want to sanctify gay marriage, then that is their religious right. Neither of these religious rights IN ANY WAY infringe on the civil union. A priest, judge, or military officer retains the right by law to sign the civil contract and legalise the union. That same individual reserves the right to choose, based on religious practice, not to preside over a marriage/civil union.

This approach solves several problems. Marriage is taken off the wedge issue table. Civil contracts are returned to their consitutional roots. Separate but equal is eliminated so that the GLBT community does not have to settle for unconsitutional second class status. Religious freedom is maintained, but the same religious freedom does not violate civil liberties. Finally, the assertion that allowing gays to marry will authorize polygamy and other state/federal offenses can be rebutted. The federal snd state governments do make polygamy illegal, but they do not make being gay illegal (and thanks to recent SCOTUS decisions, they are not sexually illegal either).

There is adequate precedent in federal and state hate crime laws making GLBT covered under equal protection. Therefore, I think my idea is legally sound.

Now that marriage is off the legal table, let's discuss what this is really all about. Gay men and women have been subject to institutional cultural discrimination their entire lives. Marriage is the next step in an ongoing struggle to be treated as equals and not sinners. The GLBT community does not want to be beaten, insulted, scapegoated and otherwise mistreated for simply being who they are. The longterm civil rights struggle is far from over. But the foundation for successfully handing the wedge issue of marriage is right in front of us... I hope that I spelled it out clearly. Once these kinds of changes are instituted and enforced, then the tide begins to turn. Once Brown vs. Board of Education was delivered, the struggle for human rights was not over, but that decision allowed for Barack Obama to ultimately be elected our President.

I want a future where a teenage boy or girl does not commit suicide because their family will not accept their sexual identity. I want a future where a young man is not left for dead because some sexually insecure group of sadists think that by brutalizing this young man they have somehow exorcised their sexual demons. I want a Christmas to pass where all children are invited to their own parents' or grandparents' dinner table no matter who they choose to love. This future can happen, and it starts by formally and discretely defining the legal institutions using the constitution of this country. Then the Rick Warrens of the world will sell a lot less books and suck up a lot less hateful oxygen.

The marriage issue is exactly why church and state should remain separate. Unfortunately, marriage has transformed into a religious institution and has infected civil law. Churches have gotten involved and created a wedge issue that is allowed to discriminate where it otherwise could not.

The 14th amendment enforces equal protection. Your citizenship is a guarantee that your rights will be enforced equally regardless of who or what you are. Civil contracts fall under this federal protection, and marriage is a civil contract. The key is to peel away the word marriage entirely. The GLBT community and the religious community are drawing a line in the sand that should not exist.

All marriages should be considered civil unions under state and federal law. As long as the civil union does not violate state and/or federal law (polygamy, bigamy, incest, statutory rape, etc.), then that civil union is valid. Marriage is a religious institution, and if a couple decides that they want a marriage, then by all means they can do so provided the church is willing to preside over the wedding. If the Catholic church, LSD, or Saddleback do not want to sanctify gay marriage, then that is their religious right. If the Unitarians want to sanctify gay marriage, then that is their religious right. Neither of these religious rights IN ANY WAY infringe on the civil union. A priest, judge, or military officer retains the right by law to sign the civil contract and legalise the union. That same individual reserves the right to choose, based on religious practice, not to preside over a marriage/civil union.

This approach solves several problems. Marriage is taken off the wedge issue table. Civil contracts are returned to their consitutional roots. Separate but equal is eliminated so that the GLBT community does not have to settle for unconsitutional second class status. Religious freedom is maintained, but the same religious freedom does not violate civil liberties. Finally, the assertion that allowing gays to marry will authorize polygamy and other state/federal offenses can be rebutted. The federal snd state governments do make polygamy illegal, but they do not make being gay illegal (and thanks to recent SCOTUS decisions, they are not sexually illegal either).

There is adequate precedent in federal and state hate crime laws making GLBT covered under equal protection. Therefore, I think my idea is legally sound.

Now that marriage is off the legal table, let's discuss what this is really all about. Gay men and women have been subject to institutional cultural discrimination their entire lives. Marriage is the next step in an ongoing struggle to be treated as equals and not sinners. The GLBT community does not want to be beaten, insulted, scapegoated and otherwise mistreated for simply being who they are. The longterm civil rights struggle is far from over. But the foundation for successfully handing the wedge issue of marriage is right in front of us... I hope that I spelled it out clearly. Once these kinds of changes are instituted and enforced, then the tide begins to turn. Once Brown vs. Board of Education was delivered, the struggle for human rights was not over, but that decision allowed for Barack Obama to ultimately be elected our President.

I want a future where a teenage boy or girl does not commit suicide because their family will not accept their sexual identity. I want a future where a young man is not left for dead because some sexually insecure group of sadists think that by brutalizing this young man they have somehow exorcised their sexual demons. I want a Christmas to pass where all children are invited to their own parents' or grandparents' dinner table no matter who they choose to love. This future can happen, and it starts by formally and discretely defining the legal institutions using the constitution of this country. Then the Rick Warrens of the world will sell a lot less books and suck up a lot less hateful oxygen.

Early Friday morning students stream out of a cafeteria in The New School's Albert List Hall. Between 50 and 200 of them had been occupying a cafeteria in the building at various times during a 36 hour protest against the university administration. It's early. The students are tired, but in good spirits after university president Bob Kerrey agreed to most of their demands, including more student voice in university affairs and the creation of a committee on Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) to oversee university capital funds. They declare victory.

But they can also claim a key victory in a less obvious battle--the battle over message. For two and a half days students reported from inside the cafeteria using text messages, email, blog posts, Youtube videos, and Twitter feeds. They responded to New York Times' City Room blog posts with news updates and fact checks. They countered Kerrey's labeling of the occupation as a "security risk" by posting videos of security personnel using excessive force on occupiers. They made their demands and their decisions clear and free for all to read. It was all in real time--and it was all powered by the university's electricity and wireless Internet.

The use of these new technologies marks a new era in fighting and winning a message war during direct actions. Not only were the New School students able to quickly and inexpensively release updates and report on the scene, they were able to respond to accusations in real time, as the events were still unfolding. Getting the message out on a broad platform has never been faster, cheaper, or more accessible--and participants can do it all without leaving the scene.

This is especially important for student organizers who have long been on the margins of mainstream media. For young activists to have access to a national platform in which their voice can be heard unedited is unprecedented.

Compared to student actions in the 1960s and 70s, the New School occupiers have had a breeze. Debra Sweet, National Director of the activist group The World Can't Wait, remembers the difficulties of message control and information dissemination in the 1960s and 1970s. "It was very hard to get on the national stage at all," she said about actions she participated in at the time.

"We didn't have any access to the media," she said. "You had very primitive technology for making mimeograph fliers. And that was the main way you communicated. You'd hand deliver press releases to the news. There was no other way to quickly get the message to them. It wasn't easy."

Of course there was no guarantee that the information relayed to the press was being reported accurately. Sweet said, "There was a lot of shaping of the message and people were vilified."

MediaChannel's Danny Schechter draws the same conclusion about his experiences in student actions at Harvard and the London School of Economics. "We used to have demonstrations and we'd all go home at night and watch them do the reports on TV, which were never quite accurate." "Today," Schechter says, "you can see it immediately online."

The New School occupiers could be thankful for that as they used video footage to document their actions and hold the university administration and security personnel accountable. On Thursday at 8PM, the New School in Exile, as the students called their action, posted a Youtube video of a security officer using excessive force on students, throwing one female student to the ground and almost choking another male student. This was posted in direct response to a letter Bob Kerrey sent to the press, labeling the occupation a "security risk." In posting the video mere hours after the incident, the New School in Exile's makeshift website stated, "We encourage the public to watch and decide exactly who is using force against whom!"

"This is definitely something that is an emerging benefit of new media technology," says Chris Crews, a graduate student in Politics at New School and participant in the occupation.

"In the case of the Kerrey letter, we got it, were able to upload some video clips showing exactly the opposite was in fact happening, and then could use that to undermine his claims and bolster ours. That isn't something that could have been done even 20 years ago," Crews says, "and hardly even 10 years ago, at least not with this reach."

Sweet asks what some student actions would have looked like if protesters had had the technologies we do today. "What if there had been real time broadcast capability during Chicago '68?" she asks. "Especially during the various rebellions in the 60s where people were being shot down in the streets by the police. It took years to piece together and uncover what happened."

Schechter makes the ultimate claim about the value of new technologies and accountability. He says, "Using video cameras monitors abuses and prevents them. People don't like to be filmed while they're beating people up."

Crews said the use of video and other new media technologies was crucial to holding the administration and security detail in check. "It serves to document events in a way that words alone cannot," he said. "We can tell the press and the public that security is over-reacting, but when we show it, it is especially powerful."

We don't know what violence (if any) might have been prevented by the students' cameras. But we do know the students were quick to distribute all evidence they had to bolster their case. The New School occupiers can be thankful they were able to document instances of abuse and show clearly the posture of security forces, police, and students. Who was the aggressor? Go to the tape.

As for the actual events, the occupation was far less dramatic and violent than protests and occupations like Columbia University and the Students for a Democratic Society activities in Chicago in 1968. There is no doubt that this action was far more subdued than the 2006 student occupation of the Sorbonne in Paris.

But even as recent as the Sorbonne occupation of 2006 students were still at the whims of mainstream media. The new School in Exile may be one of the first actions in which the participants controlled the message. They were the authors, editors, and publishers of a message that found an international audience. Activists can now counter false reports and assumptions while documenting any grievances and infringements in real time.

Nixon famously claimed that Vietnam wasn't lost on the battlefield, but instead it was lost in the halls of Congress and the editorial rooms of great newspapers. According to him, Vietnam was a failure of message control, because for the first time Americans saw the atrocities of war on the nightly news.

But now as more and more average citizens find themselves the authors of journalism, even the framing power of the editorial rooms diminishes. Those on the ground check the framing of the journalist with comments left on blog posts and links to videos. They 'tweet' about the conditions on the ground, and take digital photographs. And they can do it all as fast as the events unfold.

--
Zachary Pickens is a Brooklyn-based writer and blogger on partisanscreammachine.blogspot.com. He first learned of the New School occupation through an email from a friend in Columbus, OH.

Check out the nice slide show here:

http://www.pic2009.org/blog/entry/president-elect_barack_obama_to_be_sworn_in_using_lincolns_bible/

 

With all of the allusions Obama has made to Lincoln, I was expecting this little bit of symbolism, and I'm glad to see that it will now happen. From Huffington Post:

President-elect Barack Obama will take the oath of office using the same Bible upon which President Lincoln was sworn in at his first inauguration. Obama will be the first President sworn in using the Lincoln Bible since its initial use in 1861.

"President-elect Obama is deeply honored that the Library of Congress has made the Lincoln Bible available for use during his swearing-in," said Presidential Inaugural Committee Executive Director Emmett Beliveau. "The President-elect is committed to holding an Inauguration that celebrates America's unity, and the use of this historic Bible will provide a powerful connection to our common past and common heritage."

The Bible was originally purchased by William Thomas Carroll, Clerk of the Supreme Court, for use during Lincoln's swearing-in ceremony on March 4, 1861. The Lincoln family Bible, which is also in the Library of Congress's collection, was unavailable for the ceremony because it was packed away with the First Family's belongings, still en route from Springfield, IL, to their new home at the White House.

Maybe it would be nice to see an in-coming president swear their oath to uphold the Constitution on a copy of the Constitution itself, but I doubt that the country is ready to dispense of the symbolism of swearing on the Bible. I've always thought it odd that non-Christians were supposed to take this seriously, in court room settings and such. And as for the wingnuts, I'm sure it won't be long before we're hearing the "he's a secret-Muslim anyway, so his oath on the Bible is meaningless and insincere", or some such clap-trap like that.

For me, though, the symbolism of swearing on the same tome as the last Great Uniter is good enough for me. It's an historic volume, and it's nice to see it trotted out for the first time since 1861.

It is interesting to revisit the final words of Lincoln's inaugural address: 

I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stre[t]ching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Anyone want to place a bet on these words appearing somewhere in Obama's address?

Some interesting inauguration history:

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- As Ryan Johnson explains it, George Washington's inauguration ceremony was painstakingly planned down to the tiniest detail about seating arrangements -- with just one exception.

As the first president of the United States arrived at New York's City Hall by horse-drawn carriage and prepared to step onto the open balcony that April 30 in 1789, it belatedly occurred to organizers that there ought to be a Bible on which Washington could take the oath of office.

One of the men at hand, parade marshal Jacob Morton, also happened to be master of the St. John's Lodge No. 1 of the Masons and offered to provide one from the lodge, located nearby at the corner of Water and Wall streets. The organization's 1767 King James Version was rushed to the hall and opened to Genesis, at the end of Chapter 49 and the beginning of Chapter 50, where Washington placed his hand for the ceremony.

As he completed the oath written for the occasion, Washington added the unscripted words, "I swear, so help me God," and bowed to kiss the Bible.

Thus was born a tradition followed by almost every one of the 42 presidents inaugurated since then, including some who have used the very same Bible.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500250.htm

It's an informative article, and includes this interesting nugget:

Records kept by the Architect of the Capitol suggest only one president in the 216 years since Washington was inaugurated did not take the oath of office with one hand on a Bible. Franklin Pierce, the 14th president, "affirmed"-- but did not "swear" -- his oath with one hand on a law book, instead of a Bible. Some historical records say Pierce did so because of a crisis of faith after his only remaining child, an 11-year-old boy, was killed in a train accident a few weeks before the inauguration.

I doubt that any president-elect could get away with that today.

I wish newspapers did more of this kind of thing.  FP listed its top ten bad predictions and wow, what a celebration.  All my favorites are there: Paulson, Krauthammer, Kristol, Luskin.  

This debate about Rick Warren at Obama's swearing in ceremony has been interesting to read and I'm in the unusual position of seeing both sides (unusual for me, I mean).  On one hand I absolutely see where Loki (here and here) is coming from and feel that the choice of Warren so soon after the passage of Prop 8 was a lemony-salt mixture in an open wound to the very people who did the grunt work to get Obama elected.  On the other hand I also agree with Stillidealistic (here) that anger and hatred won't get us far - we need to find some common ground in order to make progress.  

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

I think what a lot of us forget is that when we fell for Obama's dreamy spell of Hope, he is that he was offering attempts to bring both sides together and foster a "purple" country, not a promise to only promote OUR side of every issue.  After the "so what?" attitudes of our current President and Vice President to anyone who isn't in the "conservative base" it's hard not to want someone who will give the conservatives the  "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" and uber-liberal policies they so richly deserve.  But, that's not how Obama defined himself and is not what he promised.

This is gleaned from a deposition I took in the 70's. It is a true story.

Earl had done well in life. He had several businesses but none of them compared to a small private airport he owned located in what is now an exurb of the Twin Cities. It was not the money.He made more money doing other things.  But his airport was magic. He loved airplanes.

He had been a fighter-pilot in WWII and he knew the names for all the planes going back to WWI.  After he returned from the war he had an idea.  He built this airport from scratch.Build it and they will come. And that is exactly what he did. Now every make and model of the smaller planes knew they could use his airport to get to the Cities. Easy access with a minimum of hassle.

He also owned the small local cab service and thereby made money both ways.  When the customer came in and when he left  for his ultimate destination.

Earl was cheap but smart.  He had six small hangers and managed to purchase four of his own planes through his contacts with his customers. Each hangar held three planes.The hangar were lined up in a row away from the small short runways

There was even a control tower in the center of the four short runways.even though it was not
used that much.FAA rules were rather lax in those days for smaller airports.

Earl had a brother, Ed. Ed had three sons and the youngest was causing him problems.  Earl agreed to help his brother out and offered his 17 year old nephew a job at the airport.The two brothers were sure that this would give the lad a chance to become part of the real world A chance to begin to earn his own money and have some responsibility and actually learn something..

He needed some help anyway. Airplanes needed to be cleaned and towed out from the hangars at the appointed hour so that the customer would have his machine ready at his disposal for takeoff.

Earl was a loving uncle and Tommy was enthralled by the planes.There were so many different kinds and they were like magic carpets taking you into the atmosphere where you could look down and see for miles and miles.Earl took the boy flying many times.  He instructed him as to how to start the engine and taxi to the runways.  Once they got up in the air, Tommy could take over the controls, going up and down and changing directions at will.

It was unusually cold that December.  The snow was unbelievable and ice had built up all over the area, and in front of the hangar doors.

It was such a chore to hook up the planes to the small tractor and attempt to pull the planes from the hangars over the ice and snow pack.

One day, Earl was out performing some task at one of his other businesses when he received a call from a customer that he would be leaving early and needed his plane readied for take-off.

Earl duly called Tommy and told him which plane to pull out of the hangar. He had done this several times before and Tommy was a quick study and always completed the task at hand.
But Tommy, who had the entire airport to himself, really hated going through the hassle of hooking up the plane to the tractor and attempting to pull the plane from the hangar.  And with the ice and snow build up around the hangar doors, it was a particularly gruesome task.

So in violation of THE RULE for hangar safety, Tommy would start the planes up and taxi them out of the hangars on their own power.  Besides it was so much fun to play Snoopy and
pretend he was flying into the wild blue yonder.

He climbed into the plane with his regular anticipation and started her up. It was about ten degrees above when he started the engines. The plane was not cooperating.  He tried several times and finally it started.  But there was something wrong with the engine and Tommy noticed a lot of smoke in the hangar and fire was coming out of the engines.

Tommy got scared and jumped out of the plane and ran outside.  The hangar caught fire and he ran to the phone and called the fire department.

Earl finished his appointments that afternoon and went back to the airport, just as the firemen were wrapping up the hoses and preparing to leave.  All the hangars along with sixteen planes were destroyed in the fire.This all culminated in 10 insurers suing Earl's corporation along with his insurance company.

As Earl parked his car outside the office, Tommy walked out to Earl and handed him the keys.

"I guess this means you do not want me to work here anymore."

Both are apparently no match for francophone dupes.

Yesterday the Times ran a letter to the editor viciously criticizing Caroline Kennedy's Senate bid. The letter was signed Bertrand Delanoë, who just happens to be the mayor of Paris.

The letter is laughably transparent -- even besides the fact that Delanoë is embroiled in his own political quagmire at home with the Parti Socialiste, and probably knows little and cares less about the New York Senate seat, no self-respecting Frenchman would ever profess his admiration for the American constitution as some kind of hallmark of democracy, nor would any French political figure with any prudence talk of "American decline" out in the open like that. Plus, Gray Lady, you really flatter yourself if you think the mayor of Paris has nothing better to do than read all the way back to page A40 -- and then write you to comment!

Regardless, it's great to be re-patriated for awhile -- our inflated sense of the international importance of our domestic politics notwithstanding!

Read about Enrica Cotellessa Pitz, long time Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc. controller, in Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times?

Enrica Pitz is listed as Bernie's controller in Plunkett's 2006 Investments & Securities Industries Almanac so everyone on Wall Street knows who she is.

Pitz's tribute to Sister Marguerite Torre published in the New York Daily News in September 2007  goes a long way to explaining why Pitz has been able to keep her name out of the news.

Sister Marguerite Torre was the principal at  the Blessed Virgin Mary Elementary School in Ozone Park, Queens.

More importantly, Sister Marguerite is Joe Torre's sister. Joe Torre, of course, was the long time manager of the New York Yankees and is now coach of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Ozone Park is probably best known as the home of John Gott's social club. It is just north of Howard Beach where I think Frank Dipascali was originally from.

There is a lot more to the Bernie Madoff scandal but if you're not rich and influential, you probably won't hear about it.  If you have a 401(k), think long and hard about how Wall Street keeps secrets.

A recent blog post here at TPM Cafe, caused me to go looking for some anarchistic essays, on about a coming future economic over-supply aided by great leaps in productivity caused by technological advances which would decrease workforce demand, and lead to "Zero Work" paradigms. This was floating around on the net's News Groups in the early 80's, and was a fairly commons subject published onto some of the first internet websites. I discoverd that a great deal of the websites where I read of this are no longer no longer active. Here's links to four essays

• Christian Marazzi, "Money In The World Crisis: The New Basis of Capitalist Power", 1976
• Bob Black, "The Abolition of Work", 1985
• Bob Black, "What Is Wrong With This Picture? - A critique of a neo-futurist's vision of the decline of work", 1995
• Bob Black, "Technophilia, An Infantile Disorder", 1997

Melissa Etheridge posted an editorial on The Huffington Post that I think is worth reading in reference to the LGBT and Rick Warren dust up.

We can now project that Barack Obama has been elected the forty-fourth President of the United States.

Do you remember?  Close your eyes, feel it again.  Hear the cheers, the joyous exhaultation.  Open your eyes, see it again.  People crying, holding strangers, hardly able to comprehend the words.  Remember.  Just for a moment, as you belittle everything since and scream that it's not going your way, remember.  Hope.  Just for a moment, as you allow disappointment to consume and anger to wash you away, hope.  Believe.  Just for a moment, as you question every decision and proclaim your might is right, believe.

A new year awaits.  A new President awaits.  Remember.  Hope.  Believe.  We've all waited long enough.    

Wii someone please confirm with me that Tuesday, December 23, will mark the* END* of the race in Minnesdota? Somebody (probably Franken) will be declared, right? Right?* Please! *

I live in a right-winged area.  Both religious and military.  We have the most churches per capita in Florida, and the most gay bars.  We had two people shoot and kill abortion doctors here, one of the killers was executed.  The other is still in prison.  This is the most whacked-out place I have ever lived.